Arkansas Blog

You'd never know that from reading this blog. You should maybe hire a special editor just to keep the disharmony fanned up.

ARK. BLOG: You misread, I think. I know quite well that there were hard feelings between the Obama and Clinton camps (and Edwards camp, etc.) But what I said, consistently, was that I didn't think vast numbers would commit political suicide by supporting McCain once the primary was over if their candidate lost. Those independents who trend Democratic -- and Southern Democrats -- are another question altogether. They may not vote for Obama. But not on account of bruised feelings.

Why did anybody listen when Republicans were fretting over disharmony in the Democratic party?

It was always put forth by those who wished it was so.

I am not going to worry about Ole Miss fretting over disharmony in the Razorbacks football program. If it were true Ole Miss would shut up and hope the Razorbacks couldn't figure out a solution. Why would anyone put stock in Republicans worried for the sake of the Democratic party?

Nothing in that very brief post proves anything. If the Democratic Party were truly unified, Obama would have well over 50% in Michigan and everywhere else.

It's been what, 21 days since the Demo primary was effectively over and BHO leads JM by 9 points in a state BHO had been losing. I say it's looking more and more like a landslide.

There you go again with false framing, MJD.

When looking at a mixed party poll, you simply ignore or belittle a 9 to 13.1 percent lead by the D party. The GOP is barely polling over a third, but it's the Dem polling around half (possibly over, with margin of error) who you belittle? Just a few short weeks after a very divisive battle the Dem is way ahead..and the GOPer who had practically no competition is just above a third. I would say that's fair indication of unity in the making on the D party side of things.

Nice twist of Events:

DNC Sues To Stop McCain's Gaming Of Public Finance System
by Adam B
Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:40:21 AM PDT

"The Democratic National Committee has filed suit today in federal district court in Washington, D.C. (PDF) to force the Federal Election Commission to investigate John McCain's decision to unilaterally withdraw from the FEC's matching funds program for the primary election despite his already having used program to to benefit his campaign financially.

Let's review: John McCain signed a binding agreement with the FEC back in August 2007 to accept spending limits for the primary and to abide by the conditions of receiving matching funds. To get out of that agreement, FEC Chairman David Mason explained in February, the FEC must grant permission, and for stating this obvious legal truth David Mason is being forced out of the FEC.

What's more, based on past FEC rulings McCain would not have been allowed to withdraw from the matching funds program, because in December he pledged to use his matching funds as collateral for a private loan to keep his campaign afloat."

So, four months ago the DNC filed a complaint with the FEC to investigate all this, but because there's been no quorum the Commission couldn't actually do anything. (Four votes are needed to authorize an investigation, and only two of the six seats are currently filled.) But under the law, if the FEC doesn't act within 120 days, you get to sue in district court to force the FEC to act.

Now that's a doozy of ethics twisting!!! Can't wait to see MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC and FAUX totally ignore the story ...on my name.

Most readers should be asking why congress is failing to allow votes on President Bush's nominees for the FEC. Since Democrats are blocking any nominations, its tough luck that the FEC will be unable to do anything.

rasmussen arkansas 12 days ago (name/link)

Most readers should be asking why congress is failing to allow votes on President Bush's nominees for the FEC<<<

1)Aw gee, let's see...the R candidate is gaming the system since last year and Bush's nominees will allow it to continue. Naw, say that ain't so.

2) The Bush corruption squad will overlook election "irregularities" engineered by Herr Rove, from his bunker. Couldn't happen in the Land of Free!

3) a lawsuit is now the only avenue to pursue and may get more attention. YEA!

Comes down to-would you prefer to black snakes or two black snakes plus two rattlesnakes?

You're so right, MJD. Everyone's still just as jaded as you apparently. That's why Obama's projected to pick up 6 or 7 extra states the Kerry didn't carry 4 years ago. That's why they're estimating he'll only get a measley 340-or-so electoral votes. You must be an expert at electoral politics, because you're right on target about as often as William Kristol. So, where did you get this vast expanse of knowledge that you so humbly bestow upon us lowly blogging heathens?

Muley, I'll see your Rasmussen and raise you an ABC/WaHoPo.

Blue name.

You nailed it 70%er. Of course that June 04 poll happened before Swiftboating attack began. Now we all talk about what's to come from R 527s. But, this time few are mentioning what's to come from D attacks. I prefer to keep it that way.

Hillary's female supporters are on the Obama train, too. Many feared otherwise. But women remember McInsane's crude joke years ago about Chelsea, Hillary, and Reno ("You'd be ugly, too, if you had Hillary for a mother and Janet Reno for a father.") Oh, that's right; McInsane apologized, didn't he. Democratic women also know McInsane is against legalized abortions and would appoint Supremes who'd undo Roe vs. Wade. New polls show that Obama leads McInsane by margins of 13-19 among females formerly supporting Hillary. Small wonder.

Most readers should be asking why congress is failing to allow votes on President Bush's nominees for the FEC. Since Democrats are blocking any nominations, its tough luck that the FEC will be unable to do anything.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't know, maybe the nominees suck....
Coming from Bush that would not be much of a stretch.

ES once again you read into my post stuff that's not there. I guess you are just one of those sad people looking for something to bitch about or fight over. I never belittled the fact that he was leading McCain. I just pointed out that if ALL Democrats were supporting him, that number would be higher. Are you honestly going to tell me you think Obama has won over Reagan/Clinton Democrats? If so, you're crazier than I think.

70%er thanks for a bit of reality (for those that didn't click on his name Kerry was leading Bush in June 2004 by the exact amount as Obama is leading McCain in June 2008). Both polls are pre-swiftboating. This election won't be a blow out and all these clueless people that think it will be better wake up soon.

It's scary the amount of pure hatred some of my "fellow Democrats?" spew. All in response to just one simple little sentence. Some of you seriously need medication. All I was pointing out is that not all Democrats are unified (are they ever?). I've talked to many "Reagan Democrats" that have told me they won't vote for McCain but can't vote for Obama. I've told all of them that they should vote for Obama if for no other reason than health care. I got a few to sort of agree to vote for him but most said they probably wouldn't vote for president. So based on that, I know for a fact that the party is not unified.

I'll vote for Obama despite him breaking his promise on public financing and despite many other things, but others will not at this point. Don't shoot the messenger.

Only a very few strong liberal Democrats will refuse to support Obama. Most have policies and issues they feel strongly about and they won't risk those things whatever they think of Obama. Loyalty and strong support including money, is totally a different story - but barring something huge, I can't see strongly committed Democrats voting for anyone other than Obama.

Reagan Democrats - the more conservative and some even prejudiced, either will vote McCain, Barr, or sit out this election. Those Democrats are lost this year.

There is a rift in the Democratic Party, however, and I think it is much like the one in the Republican party where neocons are split from the more traditional Republicans - there is even some animosity - but they vote strategically and support candidates even when they have to hold their nose to do so.

Reagan Democrat is another perfect example of false framing.. Yes, it was a fair term two point five decades ago. But if you switched during Reagan... and remained in the GOP.. News flash! You are a Republican! ANd Reagan was a Republican.

Why on earth should Dems be trying to embrace Reagan lovers? He was a horrible president and he's dead now. And the GOP is much further to the fascist right on many issues than a pre Alzheimers Reagan would have tolerated.

If you come back to the D party.. welcome back! But for petes sake America.. Let's not do Reagan again in any party!

"Reagan Democrats - the more conservative and some even prejudiced, either will vote McCain, Barr, or sit out this election. Those Democrats are lost this year."

I'm not going to argue the fact that some Reagan Democrats are prejudiced, but most are not. Most are concerned with national defense, and keeping government out of their pocketbook. Most I talk to know no longer care about those traditional conservative social issues or race. National defense and low taxes are the concerns they mention to me.

In talking to them, the words trust and taxes are mentioned repeatedly. They don't trust Obama with national defense and they think he will raise their taxes. I tell each one of them that unless they make over 200k or own an oil company, they have nothing to worry about. It seems to work regarding taxes, but they still say they can't trust him. The good news is that they also so they can't trust McCain.

I think most of them will go ahead in vote for Obama or just not vote, but the party is far from unified.

ES you are impossible. Reagan Democrats is just a term to describe a group of Democrats that voted for him for President. If you will recall, this "Democratic" state voted overwhelmingly for Reagan. Arkansas is full of "Reagan Democrats" whether you like it or not.

Most of the ones I've talked to are concerned Obama is a "left-wing kook" and you are the person that pops into my mind whenever they say that.

I've seen you support Webb on here as a potential VP for Obama. You do realize that Webb was part of the Reagan administration don't you?

"There is a rift in the Democratic Party, however, and I think it is much like the one in the Republican party where neocons are split from the more traditional Republicans - there is even some animosity - but they vote strategically and support candidates even when they have to hold their nose to do so." - CiCi

You're right. The party is divided, very similar to what happened when the Reagan Republican neoconservatives took over the GOP. But, this started with the New Democrats and the DLC. This split has existed for over a decade and a half. Obama didn't usher it in, he just led the battle that unseated the New Dems from power, much like McCain't led the battle that attempted to unseat the neocons, and then he gave up and became one instead.

MJD,
You are right about the Reagan Dems. That's what allowed the New Dems to take over our party. They were catering to the Reagan Democrats. But, the neoconservative revolution is dead. D-E-A-D. We have to convince them that our party provides a better option, not cater to them. We're the real big tent party. I don't agree with everything on the Dem platform, but I agree with them alot more than I do the Repubs these days (#1 reason why I vote independent every time I'm not happy with my options). That's life. You'll never find a candidate you agree with 100% of the time. Probably not even 90% of the time. If you do, you drank too much of their Kool-Aid. Let Obama gain their trust. Only he can do that.

The Democrats are ripe for their own version of Dick Cheney to swoop in and fill the void, then sell all of our souls and the souls of our children. Instead of oil, it will be for the profits generated by global warming extortion.

Eureka, the reason Democrats need the conservative Democrats who voted for Reagan and also to a great extent, voted for Clinton, is because we want the party to grow. Would the Republicans be better off if they just x'd out all those who didn't fit some narrow profile? Believe it or not, most Democrats are not as liberal as many on this blog and to say the liberals can do it alone year after year is not only foolish, it's suicide.

This year I don't think it will matter, but this is not a typical year.

mmr, I think it's debatable when and where the rift occurred, but it is now very prominent and were it not a year when winning is so important - McCain must be stopped, I think there would be more evidence of that rift. I also think from what has occurred in the past couple of weeks, that liberal Democrats are going to be surprised at how much Obama aligns himself, policywise, with the DLC. He's moderating a lot of his earlier pronouncements and will probably be much more pragmatic than some of the stronger left leaning Liberals will appreciate.

Conservative Democrats were around before liberal Democrats so I'd have to disagree with the idea that the conservatives took over the party. The opposite is the case. Reagan Democrats are consercative Democrats that voted for Reagan instead of voting for Carter or Mondale. I believe that even Reagan was once a Democrat.

Now that are country is more liberal, maybe we can win as liberal Democrats.

I love how you all sneer the word liberal and long for the Reagan"Now Pryor" Democrats on this blog.. It keeps me coming back. The false framing keeps you all so far right for the most part a liberal discussion is almost impossible on this blog.. which is fine..

Most of my hopes are based on honoring rule of law and the constitution, not torturing and fighting tooth and nail to hold onto 800 year olf Habeas Corpus..and simply not spending 40 percent of our collective federal resources on genocidal killing of innocent human beings.. Perhaps spend it on health care, securing fair wages for workers, and a new energy policy that also considers the environment damn near sacrosanct... If that's liberal... well you better have a come to the Dem jesus moment before pearly gate day, people... The radicals in America today are the Pryor Ross Dems and the GOP... and the 25 five year long former Democrats who stayed Republican through 3 Bush terms!

As for Webb I supported him (with time and money) over Macaca in the Senate race...absolutely do not like the idea of Webb as a Dem VP. It's to soon for that type of consideration of Webb and would bypass far to many good lifelong Dems... who should rightfully consider a Webb VP a slap in the face. Webb is the type of former republican we should welcome with open arms, because he flat out rejected Republicanism as it is today. Suggesting we run to /for (long lost Dems) Republicans is much different than making our platform differences clear and welcoming all newcomers.

As I said the framing is false... it leads to discussion only of Republicans without contempt they richly deserve each and every time. (War Criminals)

because the internet has empowered the anti-war/anti-corporate-welfare wings of both parties, on the right and left, to the detriment of the corporate media, is it not reasonable to expect that a major re-alignment after the election is not only possible, but probable?

perhaps Obama will have a much more difficult task keeping the DEM coalition together, than in just getting elected?

the DEMS may be fractured along pro- and anti- corporate welfare/MIC/Military force as Foreign Policy, but the GOP is fractured on more issues (limited government, corp welfare, MIC, War, balanced-budgets, and social/religious dictates in law, etc.)

when the smoke begins to settle next year, i can see large chunks of each party without a "home". where they will end up ? damifino.

I certainly don't mean to "sneer" at other liberals - I'm a liberal myself. I also don't long for anything Reagan here or anywhere else. Reagan was easily the most dangerous president of my lifetime because he made it acceptable to be selfish and to look down on minorities as 'welfare mothers' etc. But, the fact remains that many Democrats who are more conservative did like him and they will vote Democrat when they feel they can and this year they won't for the most part. That's neither good nor bad, necessarily, depending on whether we are a big tent or if we want a party of purity - where only certain beliefs are acceptable. I was afraid that losing the Reagan Democrats meant we would lose the election this year, but I no longer think that. I don't think at this time that it is possible for Obama to lose.

I agree Muleboy, things are already shifting and there is such a huge wave of anti-Republicanism this year that Obama really doesn't have to cowtow to much of anybody to get elected. To govern he will need coalitions and they aren't on the fringes - they are slap dab in the middle.

apparently he (Obama) thinks so as well, for the past two weeks have been classic "run to the left in the primaries, run to the center in the general", with a major difference... instead of "me-too-ism" on religion/iraq war, Obama is taking the fight to the GOP. a most heartening development. (though on fisa... ugh... i don't like it, but i think i understand his position, election-wise.. the "pick your battles" tactic, but overall i trust him because his sense of politics has proven stellar so far )

oops, can't believe i said "trust him" (a politician) without some qualification.

i "trust him" on electoral politics/campaigning.

when it comes to governing? i'm from Missourah.

"I love how you all sneer the word liberal and long for the Reagan"Now Pryor" Democrats on this blog.. "

You nut...I am a LIBERAL. And unlike some liberals, I have an open mind and actually listen (or read) what others have to say. I just don't hate people or go overboard when they dare disagree with me.

And fyi I don't support Mark Pryor, and Obama is not liberal enough for me.

So muleboy, where are libertarian Republicans like you going to end up?

tyvm for asking mjd,

i hope : ) that libertarian/constitutional/limited government "former" GOP (now small 'r' republicans) such as myself, will be quite happy with a more restored set of 'checks & balances' betwixt the leg/jud/exec branches, fairer taxes for the top 5% leading to close to a 'balanced-budget, a 75% reduction in US troops in Iraq (i think 100% is not politically feasible), a rollback of the "unitary-executive" trend, one legal standard for all citizens under the law, a restored 'non-partisan' DOJ, ... gosh, i'd better quit before the clock runs out on my sign-in and i lose the whole post...

better race-relations, more domestic-focus, ... mo later,

thanks for asking again

"i'd better quit before the clock runs out on my sign-in and i lose the whole post... "

LOL...good one

shower/shave and some cut 'n paste... for more complete answer

from 12May2007

Patriot Act repeal
Military Commissions Act repeal
Dept of Homeland Security dismantled (FEMA independence restored)
FISA Court Authority restored
VA Healthcare fully funded
Electronic-Voting paper backup required
Congressional War Powers authority restored
Presidential Signing Statements eliminated by statute
Military Forces fully-equipped/trained restored
Elimination of "stop loss" orders
Restoration on NatlGuard deployment rules
Restoration of state Governor's control of NatlGuard
Restoration of U.S. legal fidelity to Geneva Accords
Restoration of Congressional oversight of Executive Branch
A "True" Balanced Budget
Iraq War brought into Budget
Limiting Presidential 'Executive Order' power by statute
Less than 80,000 U.S. troops deployed in Iraq

and from 8Apr2008

the number of dollars spent by the U.S. Federal Government on subsidies/welfare, both social and corporate (especially high-tech weaponry and the militarization of space) to be set on a path of incremental change, resulting 8 years later in significant, some would say "radical" reductions. (-20% at least, correlated to fewer/fairer taxes and a true balanced budget)

fewer Federal laws more fully and fairly applied. (and fewer FedGov programs/departments/employees) with only 3 categories of persons in the Federal Code: 1. Full Citizen 2. pre-Full Citizen 3. non-Citizen

full restoration of "Habeus Corpus", 4th Amendment protections, 'due process', and 'the rule of law' (regardless of race, creed, colour, orientation, financial status)

50% reduction in the U.S. Armed Forces stationed outside the U.S. (in 8 years or less)

pre-WWII 'checks/balances' of power restored, between the U.S. HoR/Senate, the Judicial Branch, and the Executive Branch.

pre-WWII 'balance of power' restored, between the States and the Federal Government.

the integrity of the U.S. borders restored/enforced. (with a fairer/more competent legal-immigration policy, and illegal-assimilation policy)

the elimination of all Federal drug laws and agencies enforcing them.

U.S. FedGov policies/laws to NOT impede research/market solutions to protect/preserve/restore the quality of air/land/water. (and Federal land/water use policies to support, not subvert, those solutions)

U.S. international Trade policies to reflect the need for slower incremental reductions in the gap between foreign workers' standards-of-living/wages and the American labor force's.

Severus,

I don't have to ask why. The Democrats are not blocking. They are only asking for an up or down vote on Hans von Spakovsky' s nomination, but Senator Mitch McConnell refused to go along with it. So why don't you ask why he is blocking the nominees?

Of course, you, like most of the other ArTimes Bloggers probably know.