Originally Posted by Weave

Thune's RE-election was in '10 when had had NO opponent because he was considered unbeatable.....He was initially elected in 04, knocking off the sitting Senate majority leader...an impressive accomplishment.

I think what TNT is asking is what Thune accomplished as Senator in between these two elections.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I think what TNT is asking is what Thune accomplished as Senator in between these two elections.

Well what were the accomplishments of the Annointed One, Obama?

How do you measure that as a congressman or senator when it takes collective action to get things done. Thune has added amendments and sponsored bills that I have supported. Does that make it an accomplishment? Im sure we'd disagree based on the contents of the bill in question. Obama, in contrast, was an empty suit in the Senate, rarely even getting involved in much as he began campaigning for Pres in late 06.

As far as stacking resume's against Obama in 08, Thune is much more accomplished and experienced in national government. The last 2 years have been a steep, steep learning curve for the Annointed One and he has shown he is in way over his head. Voting present as commander in chief rarely works out well....

Originally Posted by TnT

Not true. SD has both the Rosebud and the Pine Ridge Reservations, incidentally those counties contain some of the highest, if not THE highest poverty rates, alcoholism rates, diabetes rates in the whole country. The social devastation evident in these two god-awful places makes one ashamed.

However in the "white" towns in SD, you're right ... the extraction of most folks is Norwegian, Swedish, German, Irish and a smattering of Welsh, Scot, etc.

Of course. And those First Peoples (I have come to like the Canadian term) comprise the biggest minority in South Dakota. Obviously the state government does little for them, and GOP machines probably do everything possible to ensure that they don't vote in large numbers.

Barack Obama did extremely well among First Peoples in the South Dakota.

I saw a poll that indicated that John Thune would win South Dakota 57-37-6 against President Obama, showing that Senator Thune, suggesting that the Senator is well attuned to the state. He would do better than John McCain did, but that said, the Favorite Son effect is worth about ten percent. Indeed, he does about 10% better than either Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee. Gingrich probably loses the state and Palin loses catastrophically in South Dakota (among other states that President Obama lost).

In case anyone is watching the polls -- I do -- since Election Day, President Obama beats every imaginable GOP candidate in every state that he won in 2008 except perhaps Indiana, and I qualify Indiana only because I have seen no poll for Indiana since November.

If you think that John Thune is an empty suit, he's apparently fine for South Dakota -- but I doubt that he could do well in any state with a large urban population. He'd be a fish out of water in Minnesota, Iowa, and Colorado -- states with some medium-to-large cities and very different needs from those of the voters of a state so rural as South Dakota. He has yet to show that he understand policy in either urban or even suburban areas. Many states have suburbs bigger than the largest city in South Dakota (Sioux Falls). Maybe there is something to having been a community organizer in Chicago instead of being a ward boss as is the usual way of getting ahead in Chicago politics.

Originally Posted by Weave

Well what were the accomplishments of the Annointed One, Obama?

How do you measure that as a congressman or senator when it takes collective action to get things done. Thune has added amendments and sponsored bills that I have supported. Does that make it an accomplishment? Im sure we'd disagree based on the contents of the bill in question. Obama, in contrast, was an empty suit in the Senate, rarely even getting involved in much as he began campaigning for Pres in late 06.

As far as stacking resume's against Obama in 08, Thune is much more accomplished and experienced in national government. The last 2 years have been a steep, steep learning curve for the Annointed One and he has shown he is in way over his head. Voting present as commander in chief rarely works out well....

That's not what I see. He has his own unique trajectory in American politics. Right now you can throw out what he did before 2008, as it now means nothing to what he has achieved since he took office.

In the first two years he has been unusually, even freakishly successful in promoting legislation that got enacted. He has been a stickler for formalities and getting his facts straight (sloppiness on those is a disaster). He has avoided scandals. He presided over the turnaround from the most dangerous economic meltdown since 1929-1933. He gets his point across at least as effectively as Ronald Reagan. He has created no international fluffs.

So far I see him as above average -- at the least, Ronald Reagan in political skills if not the obnoxious characters (schemers and ideologues). The Attorney doesn't stir up controversies so much as he arranges the downfall of crooks. There's no James Watt in this Administration.

The negative is obvious enough: he has stepped on the toes of some privileged elites who have chosen to lavish funds on any political candidate who will serve the top 2% of income grabbers (I am not so sure that all of the income is genuinely 'earned' -- and I include investment income as 'earned' income) and wealth-holders at the expense of everyone else. We shall see who wins in 2012. So far the Other Side is rife with rifts, scandals, bigotry, and absurdities. So far he has been more effective in the first two years of his Presidency than any President since at least LBJ.

Originally Posted by James50

This is not the question I was asking. I repeat myself.

"Can you show me a single piece of data since 1978 that shows that the growth of government in CA has not far exceeded the population growth and inflation since then?"

Remember, the left is fact based.

James50

I think you have a point about government employee unions. I haven't seen Gov. Brown go after them either. It may be because they are legally entitled to their pensions. It might take an initiative to bring these costs down. We did it in our local city government though, and you'll be glad to know I voted for it.

For the rest, I don't have facts and figures to "base" my comments on at the moment, but we know that education has suffered in CA (I know that our standings are quite low). The fact that most students can't afford our state universities any more is and will affect the innovation that CA was known for when we had a strong system that many people could attend. The infrastructure in our cities is routinely ranked at the bottom; I think my city was in last place in the USA in regard to the shape of our streets. Admittedly our prisons have expanded, and our welfare system seems to be doing OK. That may be because incomes are pretty high in CA, and so income taxes do well for the state-- except in recessions like the current one. Now we are up the creek, and the Reps won't even agree to extend taxes that the Republican governor got in a deal last year. The cost may be to virtually shut down the state.

Prop 13 was about property taxes, and it's cities and local governments that benefit from those. They have been having a hard time in many cases. It is true that the people of the state and various districts can vote for bond issues, which seems to be where most of our money comes from. I'm not sure what's going to pay for the state bonds now that the state has no money and its credit is rated junk status.

Nate Silver has a good article in the NYTimes mapping out the possible GOP field.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...ublican-field/

The biggest two players on his map - no surprise there - Romney & Palin.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

That's not what I see. He has his own unique trajectory in American politics. Right now you can throw out what he did before 2008, as it now means nothing to what he has achieved since he took office.

In the first two years he has been unusually, even freakishly successful in promoting legislation that got enacted. He has been a stickler for formalities and getting his facts straight (sloppiness on those is a disaster). He has avoided scandals. He presided over the turnaround from the most dangerous economic meltdown since 1929-1933. He gets his point across at least as effectively as Ronald Reagan. He has created no international fluffs.

So far I see him as above average -- at the least, Ronald Reagan in political skills if not the obnoxious characters (schemers and ideologues). The Attorney doesn't stir up controversies so much as he arranges the downfall of crooks. There's no James Watt in this Administration.

The negative is obvious enough: he has stepped on the toes of some privileged elites who have chosen to lavish funds on any political candidate who will serve the top 2% of income grabbers (I am not so sure that all of the income is genuinely 'earned' -- and I include investment income as 'earned' income) and wealth-holders at the expense of everyone else. We shall see who wins in 2012. So far the Other Side is rife with rifts, scandals, bigotry, and absurdities. So far he has been more effective in the first two years of his Presidency than any President since at least LBJ.

As usual your assertions are laughable. Obama could not hold a candle to Reagan. His accomplishments thus far were only achieved because he held LARGE majorities in both houses. It even took crooked deals and kickbacks to get his health care legislation passed. He then took a massive kick in the teeth in the midterms for doing the dirty deed and the Legislation will most likely be ruled as unconstitutional. He couldnt even pass most of his agenda like cap and trade, card check and raising taxes. He is now rapidly trying to tack himself towards the center in a laughable attempt to appear moderate. so he can cling to power for another 4 yrs. His inept handling of the oil spill only has furthered the belief of his own incompetence.

In foreign affairs he signed a pathetic START treaty in which it was just released in WIKI that he sold out our British Allies (whom which he has a hatred for) thus adding to the list of alies he has screwed over (Poland, Czech Rep, Israel, Egypt).

Obama is a weak pathetic President with rapidly declining ability to influence events towards his far left point of view. He must now attempt to move right and carry out policies at odds with his own beliefs and to the chagrin of far left nuts like you who have to lie and throw out half truths and laughable comparisons with effective leaders like Reagan (who you hate) to make him appear Presidential. Pathetic....

Originally Posted by Weave

... Thune is much more accomplished and experienced in national government.

And so, my question stands ... WTF has Thune ever done, in your terms, "IN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT?" He "added an amendment?"

Christ, the guy is from effing South Dakota. You ever been there? If not ... you have NO IDEA.

Oh, and by the way, Thune currently has a $7 MILLION pile of cash left over that he can use to run for president.

Where do you suppose all that money came from?

Hint: It didn't come from either the Rosebud or Pine Bluff reservations.

Second Hint: It didn't come as a result of $5 and $10 contributions from the people of South Dakota.

Originally Posted by TnT

And so, my question stands ... WTF has Thune ever done, in your terms, "IN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT?" He "added an amendment?"

Christ, the guy is from effing South Dakota. You ever been there? If not ... you have NO IDEA.

Did you vote for Nixon in 72? Or the other guy...Senator George McGovern. I doubt the leftwing nutjobs worried about him being from SD.......Did you vote for Clinton from Arkansas? Did you vote for John "Lurch" Kerry...what were his accomplishments in the Senate besides flip-flopping on the Iraq War? Did you ever support John Edwards, a sleazy ambulance chaser with a measly 1 term in the Senate under his belt.....

Of course you supported the biggest light-wieght of them all B. Hussien Obama...a "Community Organizer".....

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Nate Silver has a good article in the NYTimes mapping out the possible GOP field.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...ublican-field/

The biggest two players on his map - no surprise there - Romney & Palin.

Too bad Mike Pence isn't running. Personally, Paul and the Trump have my support.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Nate Silver has a good article in the NYTimes mapping out the possible GOP field.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...ublican-field/

The biggest two players on his map - no surprise there - Romney & Palin.

I think the map is too simplistic. Ron Paul is not a moderate by any means fiscally, he just is one on social issues. This caused the artist of this graph to label him a "moderate" when he really isn't one in the same fashion as Gulliani or Romney; just a libertarian.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

I think the map is too simplistic. Ron Paul is not a moderate by any means fiscally, he just is one on social issues. This caused the artist of this graph to label him a "moderate" when he really isn't one in the same fashion as Gulliani or Romney; just a libertarian.

Absolutely correct about what Ron Paul is about.

He will have no problem raising money but the Republican establishment will do everything they can to keep him out of the debates. In the last run he had a very motivated cadre of youngsters and he was getting standing ovations from the youngsters. Ironically the Republicans could probably win with Ron Paul but the neocons want to keep the wars and the police state going.

The civil rights crowd would be happy with him but the socialist and progressives almost certainly hate him as much as the neocons do.

Originally Posted by Galen

The civil rights crowd would be happy with him but the socialist and progressives almost certainly hate him as much as the neocons do.

"The civil rights crowd" understands that good government is necessary to enforce good laws that protect peoples rights from predators and prejudiced people. So no, they will not be for Ron Paul.

Originally Posted by Weave

As usual your assertions are laughable. Obama could not hold a candle to Reagan. His accomplishments thus far were only achieved because he held LARGE majorities in both houses. It even took crooked deals and kickbacks to get his health care legislation passed. He then took a massive kick in the teeth in the midterms for doing the dirty deed and the Legislation will most likely be ruled as unconstitutional. He couldnt even pass most of his agenda like cap and trade, card check and raising taxes. He is now rapidly trying to tack himself towards the center in a laughable attempt to appear moderate. so he can cling to power for another 4 yrs. His inept handling of the oil spill only has furthered the belief of his own incompetence.

In foreign affairs he signed a pathetic START treaty in which it was just released in WIKI that he sold out our British Allies (whom which he has a hatred for) thus adding to the list of alies he has screwed over (Poland, Czech Rep, Israel, Egypt).

Obama is a weak pathetic President with rapidly declining ability to influence events towards his far left point of view. He must now attempt to move right and carry out policies at odds with his own beliefs and to the chagrin of far left nuts like you who have to lie and throw out half truths and laughable comparisons with effective leaders like Reagan (who you hate) to make him appear Presidential. Pathetic....

Obama is sometimes weak and sometimes strong. Your critique of how he got his health care bill through is irrelevant; he got it through by dint of determination and skill. He wimped out on cap and trade. But his failures are largely due to the stranglehold the Republicans and Democrats in name only (or former Democrats in name only) had on the Senate due to its own rules. Noone can get much through under those circumstances.

No objective observer can categorize his aims as far left. His health care bill was largely Republican, and his financial reforms are quite mild. For example, he did not take over GM and convert it to clean energy, as he should have and could have done.

Reagan got his tax decreases through; it's always easy to get those. He cooperated with Democrats to increase social security taxes and close loopholes; quite good actually. That is the extent of his domestic achievements. Meanwhile his administration was riddled with more scandal and corruption than any other in history. He raised the national debt to such an extent that it has not recovered. No use blaming congress for that; he signed whatever was approved. His deregulations and those that followed him have crippled our national economy, and by saddling our nation with the likes of you who worship his false trickle-down free market ideology, we have fallen behind other nations so far that we may never catch up, and our middle class is declining so far that we may never again be a middle class country, but one divided between a few rich and many poor-- which was the design of his policies to begin with.

Conservatives argued that he caused the fall of the Soviet Union. But noone can prove that. He started a military defense buildup that was unnecessary and bankrupted the nation. It was Gorbachev that changed the Soviet Union; without him it probably would still be what it was. Credit is due Reagan for taking the opportunity that Gorbachev gave him.

All I keep reading is about who might win the Republican primary in 2012.

What about who might win the Democratic primary in 2012?

If Obama vacillates in the face of Islamist Egypt - and an Islamist Egypt is a much bigger fait accompli than an 18-game schedule is in the NFL - as Carter vacillated in the face of Islamist Iran, Hillary will run against him, and Hillary will whip his ass - otherwise whoever does get the GOP nomination is liable to hang a goose-egg on the Dems in the Electoral College in November.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

I think the map is too simplistic. Ron Paul is not a moderate by any means fiscally, he just is one on social issues. This caused the artist of this graph to label him a "moderate" when he really isn't one in the same fashion as Gulliani or Romney; just a libertarian.

Of course, your observations bring out the obvious problem - libertarians being all over the map on so many issues. But take a libertarian OUT of the map and everything else falls in rather nice and neatly.

I would absolutely love to have Ron Paul nominated in 2012. He is the only GOP figure who would lose even worse then Palin would. And Palin would be Goldwater all over again from sea to shining sea, from the top of the ticket to the bottom.

In fact they may as well go with a P-P ticket in 2012 - Palin & Paul. Get all the bad stuff out of your system in one huge purge then the Republican Party get get about the business of creating a real party with a future ahead of it.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

All I keep reading is about who might win the Republican primary in 2012.

What about who might win the Democratic primary in 2012?

If Obama vacillates in the face of Islamist Egypt - and an Islamist Egypt is a much bigger fait accompli than an 18-game schedule is in the NFL - as Carter vacillated in the face of Islamist Iran, Hillary will run against him, and Hillary will whip his ass - otherwise whoever does get the GOP nomination is liable to hang a goose-egg on the Dems in the Electoral College in November.

Obama and Hillary sink or swim together on Egypt; The loss of Egypt will empower the Neo-Con's to the rest of our determinate.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Of course, your observations bring out the obvious problem - libertarians being all over the map on so many issues. But take a libertarian OUT of the map and everything else falls in rather nice and neatly.

I would absolutely love to have Ron Paul nominated in 2012. He is the only GOP figure who would lose even worse then Palin would. And Palin would be Goldwater all over again from sea to shining sea, from the top of the ticket to the bottom.

In fact they may as well go with a P-P ticket in 2012 - Palin & Paul. Get all the bad stuff out of your system in one huge purge then the Republican Party get get about the business of creating a real party with a future ahead of it.

Neo-Con's win the party then; it would be the worst outcome for a two-party system. Might as well, rename the Democrat's and GOP the Demicans.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Neo-Con's win the party then; it would be the worst outcome for a two-party system. Might as well, rename the Democrat's and GOP the Demicans.

at least the adults get back the GOP. Right now - its being pulled in the wrong direction by a bunch of spoiled children who refuse to listen to reason. The GOP is like somebody who went to a State Fair and filled up on all sort of junk food for eight hours plus rode all the rides and inhaled all the livestock fumes.

Sure its fun while it is happening and even seems like some highlight moments in your life - buts its more fantasy than reality and you cannot sustain such a roller coaster ride and binge. They spend the evening hours riding the porcelain bus and have to purge themselves of all that crap that is in their system.

2012 might be that opportunity to purge.

Originally Posted by James50

The left is always bragging that its ideas are "fact based" compared to the right. Can you show me a single piece of data since 1978 that shows that the growth of government in CA has not far exceeded the population growth and inflation since then? There has been nothing "hampered" about it.

The problem is that every need in the state has been made subordinate to the requests of the government unions. At some point, the left in CA will have to come to terms with the fact that they are gutting education and every other social program to pay the ridiculous salaries, pensions, and health benefits of current and past government employees. The young are being punished to keep the old government pensioners fat and happy. Where is the outrage?

James50

Two questions for you about Californian governmental finances

1- how much money has been denied to the government because of Prop 13 since its passage?

2- how much debt is there now among state government?

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

at least the adults get back the GOP. Right now - its being pulled in the wrong direction by a bunch of spoiled children who refuse to listen to reason. The GOP is like somebody who went to a State Fair and filled up on all sort of junk food for eight hours plus rode all the rides and inhaled all the livestock fumes.

Sure its fun while it is happening and even seems like some highlight moments in your life - buts its more fantasy than reality and you cannot sustain such a roller coaster ride and binge. They spend the evening hours riding the porcelain bus and have to purge themselves of all that crap that is in their system.

2012 might be that opportunity to purge.

Every single candidate mention in the article is compromised, minus Paul and Trump. So yes, if they can purge, I am for it.

Questions to ask;

1. Will you support or reject the Patriot Act as written; Trump and Paul reject it.

2. Dial back Spending and support Deficit Reduction; Trump and Paul support this, the rest supply lip service to it.

3. One thing to hang your hat on the Constitution, then how can you support #1?

Reason why the GOP gave lip service to those who believe in the basic tenants of the Tea Party. Not because of the Neo-Conservatives drones voices are louder; but they corrupted a movement that has great appeal, even to me.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Every single candidate mention in the article is compromised, minus Paul and Trump. So yes, if they can purge, I am for it.

Questions to ask;

1. Will you support or reject the Patriot Act as written; Trump and Paul reject it.

2. Dial back Spending and support Deficit Reduction; Trump and Paul support this, the rest supply lip service to it.

3. One thing to hang your hat on the Constitution, then how can you support #1?

Reason why the GOP gave lip service to those who believe in the basic tenants of the Tea Party. Not because of the Neo-Conservatives drones voices are louder; but they corrupted a movement that has great appeal, even to me.

Question for Trump: do you still support a general wealth tax to be used for deficit reduction?

Paul has no chance of any kind to be elected president. In fact, he makes Palin's chances look good. And that is some accomplishment.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Two questions for you about Californian governmental finances

1- how much money has been denied to the government because of Prop 13 since its passage?

There is no way to tell. It looks like in lieu of property taxes, all other taxes have been raised to high levels. Without Prop 13, some of these taxes would have been less. Income and sales taxes are difficult to rely on because they are so dependent on economic activity and are so narrowly collected. These taxes rise and fall with the economy. The good thing about property taxes is their stability. Talk to anyone charged with financing local public education, and they will speak of the virtues of the property tax.

Also, I do not understand your use of the work "denied". Is there some level of property taxes that the government is somehow entitled to?

The worst effect of prop 13 was that it put in place super-majority requirements for local budgeting.

2- how much debt is there now among state government?

A lot. Is this a trick question?

The reason you will not answer my question is that the answer is obvious. California state government has not been starved for anything. It is more like a great engorged beast that can never be satiated. One day the left will wake up and see what its totem of public employee unions has wrought. Everything they believe in has been sacrificed to this totem. I hope this awakening will be soon.

Interesting how often I ask for facts from the left, and they just retort with more questions.

James50

Lot's of things I have thought about Obama, but clueless has never been one of them. I hope this is just from some disgruntled insider.

Obama is clueless. Totally clueless. I am not talking a little out of step here. I am talking the man has no idea what is going on around him. This is not coming from me. I am relaying it from some still around him on a regular basis. These people are getting increasingly concerned over just how “out of it”, that is the phrase repeated to me, Obama has become. His primary focus is now getting elected in ‘12. Everything else has been given over to Jarrett and her group. Everything. The president has no interest in policy. None. No interest in working legislation. None. No interest in forging a specific agenda. None. He is being told what he needs to say and that is it. That is the extent of his interest. “Just make it look good."

Here.

James50