A Liberal in the White House

January 30th, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:
Leave a comment

IS it time for a liberal in the White House after eight years of Bush (many of which while reps were the majority in congress)?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. C Stanley
    January 30th, 2008 at 20:01
    Reply | Quote | #1

    No, but if it has to be then please let it be with a Republican congress!
    (Tap, can we agree on this one? ;-)   )

  2. Tap
    January 30th, 2008 at 20:03
    Reply | Quote | #2

    We have found common ground, Christine!

  3. Michael van der Galien
    January 30th, 2008 at 20:04
    Reply | Quote | #3

    That’s why I asked. I saw a comment saying something about you too probably agreeing on liberals / liberal policies. ;)

  4. C Stanley
    January 30th, 2008 at 20:16
    Reply | Quote | #4

    Thanks for obliging before things got ugly!
    (joking of course.)

  5. Tap
    January 30th, 2008 at 20:22
    Reply | Quote | #5

    Aw, now you guys know it’s no fun to sit around agreeing all the time.  But it would be fun to go team up on someone else for a while!  ;)

  6. Rudi666
    January 30th, 2008 at 20:40
    Reply | Quote | #6

    But the Congress won’t be Republican in 2008. If a Liberal gets in, the coattail effect will mean a more Liberal Congress, not less. Even then, the Liberals would have to really screw up(Foley, Stevens and Cunningham) to lose the Congress. But then Pelosi and Reid aren’t doing that well, kinda like Hassert at this time.

  7. C Stanley
    January 30th, 2008 at 20:50
    Reply | Quote | #7

    Here’s how I see it though, Rudi: if all of the conservatives who can’t bring themselves to vote for McCain really do follow through on their threats, won’t they at least show up at the polls to vote R in Senate and House races? It’s not the same as when normally inactive voting blocks don’t bother to show up, this is part of the Republican base, the activists.

  8. Rudi666
    January 30th, 2008 at 20:58
    Reply | Quote | #8

    CS – Look at the turnout in Florida. It could have beenthe tax proposal, but nearly as many Democrats turned out to vote in the meaningless beauty contest. Also, look at the money being raised, the Democrats are energized, the Republicans are feuding  and being driven by the ilk of Malkin and Limpbaugh.

  9. C Stanley
    January 30th, 2008 at 21:04
    Reply | Quote | #9

    Yeah, I’ve thought about the turnout and I agree it doesn’t bode well- but I don’t think you can extrapolate that much from primary turnouts. There’s a big difference between caring about which candidate your party puts forward and caring about stopping the opposing party’s candidates or policies. A difference between being unenthusiastic about your own candidates and being enthusiastic about holding back opponents.

  10. Rudi666
    January 30th, 2008 at 21:21
    Reply | Quote | #10

    CS Google on primary turnout, these primaries are seing record turnout.

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h9rHJWtFr01mL8BYK-Llv74TPzawD8UG08I00

    Florida Voters Turn Out for Primary By MITCH STACY – 15 hours ago TAMPA, Fla. (AP) — A close Republican presidential race and a proposal to lower property taxes brought out Florida voters in large numbers Tuesday.Turnout was estimated at 30 percent, with about 3 million voters casting ballots — 1.4 million Democrats and 1.6 million Republicans. That was well up from the approximately 20 percent who cast ballots in the 2000 and 2004 presidential primaries, which was held after the nominees were decided, and the 2006 gubernatorial primary.

    Liberal college student alert – Kentucky
    That being said, the only clear winner in my eyes is the Democratic Party. We have set records for turnout in each state that awarded delegates – Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. (Michigan and Florida were stripped of their delegates for rules violations.)

    In South Carolina, Democratic primary voters outnumbered Republican primary voters for the first time since 1992. In Iowa, more than 220,000 Democrats voted, shattering the previous record of around 140,000.

    Bush won in 2004 because of record turnout. It seems the Demoncrats will have the record turnout this time, unless Billary burns down Atlanta.

  11. C Stanley
    January 31st, 2008 at 01:00
    Reply | Quote | #11

    Billary burns down Atlanta.

    Could happen- Bill’s gotta be fuming over our mayor Shirley dressing him down during MLK day celebrations. :-)

  12. C Stanley
    January 31st, 2008 at 01:01
    Reply | Quote | #12

    Oh, and logically I’m sure you’re right about the turnout- no doubt which side is more fired up. I just have to hope though…

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.