I thought that the moderator asked the wrong question. I would have enjoyed the following question:

"Speaker Gingrich, in 1999 you supported the attempt to impeach Bill Clinton because of a personal sexual indiscretion. In light of the interview just given by your ex-wife, how do you answer the charge of hypocrisy?"

I was genuinely surprised that so many South Carolina Republicans jumped at the idea that the real culprit in all this was the media.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I thought that the moderator asked the wrong question. I would have enjoyed the following question:

"Speaker Gingrich, in 1999 you supported the attempt to impeach Bill Clinton because of a personal sexual indiscretion. In light of the interview just given by your ex-wife, how do you answer the charge of hypocrisy?"

I was genuinely surprised that so many South Carolina Republicans jumped at the idea that the real culprit in all this was the media.

My recollection could be faulty, but what I remember is that while Gingrich was speaker during the impeachment procedure, he was not out front leading the charge. Its obvious now why.

Can you find a youtube of Gingrich condemning Clinton for the Monica affair specifically? Also, keep in mind that Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice and not for sexual indiscretions. These motions were related to the Lewinsky affair but also Paula Jones. The motions for abuse of power and a second perjury charge failed.

James50

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

"Speaker Gingrich, in 1999 you supported the attempt to impeach Bill Clinton because of a personal sexual indiscretion. In light of the interview just given by your ex-wife, how do you answer the charge of hypocrisy?"

Since when does perjury and obstruction of justice become "personal sexual indiscretion"? He wasn't impeached based on a personal sexual indiscretion. He was impached based upon the felony of perjury in lying to the American people and before a grand jury and obstruction of justice.

Of course, it could just be a matter of what your definition of is is.


j.p.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

I've decided your negativity is simply a reverse jinx. You know, like when I tell my NY Yankee friends that they look like they will sweep the Sox in a weekend series. I used to live in New England. I know how you do it.

At worst, Obama has an even money shot to win. Many of the electoral model geeks are projecting victory for him (i.e. Pollyvote).

As to comments about the block voting of the south. The demographics do not favor this holding. Immigration and migration from the North are seeing to that. See AZ as an example.

I have created several threads in another web zone in which I pay much attention -- US elections. Material from that area, most troubling, maps, do not transfer well to this site. I try to pay attention to the mechanics of our elections -- and those mechanics favor President Obama.

You may want to open this link in a separate window or tab for reference

It may be unsettling to see what look like near-certain wins for President Obama (like New York and California) in blue and those that look like sure wins for just about any Republican (like Mississippi and Idaho) in red -- but that reflects the historical pattern in which Democrats usually had the color red (for left-leaning) and the Republicans had the color blue (for right-leaning) in use before 2000. It is a historical site, and the 2012 Presidential election (barring a travesty as in 2000) will be literal history in nine months.

Look at the map for Mitt Romney.

In essence, President Obama must campaign to win, but he is in a very good position in which to win even against Mitt Romney. If he wins every state that he won by 8% or more in 2008 except New Hampshire (where Mitt Romney has his official residence and is understood to be a Favorite Son, Favorite Son status being worth about 10%), the President has at least five states (Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia) in which he has about a 50% chance of winning. By winning all states that Al Gore won in 2000, Colorado, Nevada, and any one of those states in which I think he has roughly a 50-50 chance... he wins re-election. That is a close analogue to how things were around September 1, 2008. The states that I highlighted in boldface are different enough from each other that although the President can conceivably tailor an approach that wins one as a sure thing even if it chills people in another... and get the needed 270 electoral votes. Really, New Hampshire is extremely close, and if Granite-Staters quit treating Mitt Romney as a Favorite Son, then Mitt Romney still loses the state and the election.

If President Obama wins Arizona or Florida because elderly voters cavil at the Ryan budget that privatizes Medicare into a voucher -- he wins. If President Obama gets strong union support in Ohio for having saved the auto industry, he wins. If he wins Virginia because he holds onto the highly-educated upscale voters who voted for him in 2008, he wins.

To have more than a 3% random chance to win, then Mitt Romney must force shifts of support nationwide from President Obama toward him. President Obama is in the position in which he can largely play it safe while Mitt Romney must make daring moves with which to win the nationwide election. That worked extremely well for Barack Obama in 2008. That is not a perfect analogy; Mitt Romney has more time in which to recover from mistakes than did John McCain and might be less reckless. The Presidential election offers no particular rewards for 'just-barely-losing'.

Mitt Romney has to win all of the states in bold face, which means that he must force a large shift of support from President Obama to him nationwide if he is to have more than about a 3% chance of winning. Remember: a 50-50 chance means 1/2 chance of winning, and for statistically-distinct 'events', the chance of winning five such random 'events' is one in 32, or 3.125%.


For Gingrich, Paul, and Santorum things are far worse. Gingrich loses Arizona, Florida, and Ohio by margins greater than 10% and such states as Virginia and North Carolina by margins in the high single digits. He loses Missouri, South Carolina, and according to the latest PPP poll in Texas, Texas! Some polls show him losing Kentucky and Kansas, which I find hard to believe. All in all I think that Gingrich loses the electoral college roughly 450-90 if he does lose Texas.

Paul does win Texas -- but he loses Georgia, which no Republican can afford to lose. He loses Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia decisively. Such suggests roughly a replay of 2008.

For Santorum I have only four states to show, but they are all big ones electorally. He does win Texas, he is even in North Carolina (which isn't good enough), he is under-even in Florida (definitely not good enough), and he loses both Arizona and Ohio. To be sure, a RINO of Italian origin could defeat President Obama in 2008 (as could a RINO of German, Scandinavian, Scots-Irish, Polish, or Spanish origin).. but Rick Santorum has far too many ties to the largely-discredited administration of George W. Bush... and he is a right-wing hard-liner.

Now here is the sort of poll to which I pay attention:

Public Policy Polling

This is a Democratic pollster, but in 2008 and 2010 its results tended to lean more Republican than electoral results. This is for Texas, a state that President Obama lost badly in 2008, to which he has no connections, and in which he has spent little time.

Texas Survey Results

Q1 Do you approve or disapprove of President
Barack Obama’s job performance?
Approve .................................................. ........ 44%
Disapprove........................................ .............. 54%
Not sure .................................................. ........ 3%

Ordinarily an incumbent can add between 3% and 8% to his approval rating in a state and expect that as an electoral result -- toward the high end if he actively campaigns and toward the low end if he doesn't. I'd lean toward the low end because I can't expect the President to do much campaigning in Texas. If you want to see what a loser looks like, here's one:

Q4 Do you approve or disapprove of Governor
Rick Perry’s job performance?

Approve .................................................. ........ 42%
Disapprove........................................ .............. 51%
Not sure .................................................. ........ 7%

Rick Perry can be thankful that he isn't up for re-election.

Q9 If the candidates for President this year were
Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Rick
Perry, who would you vote for?

Barack Obama............................................. ... 47%
Rick Perry .................................................. ..... 48%
Undecided......................................... .............. 5%

If Texas were a critical state in 2012, Perry would be of no help as a VP candidate. Like Sarah Palin he would throw red meat to the base while offending everyone else. Texans might conceivably vote for him to be VP just to be rid of him. Let's put it this way -- if his career as Governor were analogous to a Broadway play it might be near the end of its run. At that, the Republicans have others in critical states who could be so used (Brewer in Arizona, Walker in Florida, Kasich in Ohio), and unfortunately for the GOP it can't use all thee.

Note well that President Obama lost the state by 11% in 2008. If Republicans are building a larger base or cutting into Obama support, that should show as an increasing spread between others and President Obama.

Q7 If the candidates for President this year were
Democrat Barack Obama and Republican
Newt Gingrich, who would you vote for?

Barack Obama............................................. ... 47%
Newt Gingrich ................................................. 45%
Undecided......................................... .............. 8%

Q8 If the candidates for President this year were
Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Ron
Paul, who would you vote for?

Barack Obama............................................. ... 40%
Ron Paul .................................................. ....... 46%
Undecided......................................... .............. 14%

Q13 If the candidates for President this year were
Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Rick
Santorum, who would you vote for?

Barack Obama............................................. ... 42%
Rick Santorum.......................................... ...... 49%
Undecided......................................... .............. 9%

For a state unlikely to draw attention from the Obama campaign, the race tightens up with Paul and Santorum. Gingrich even loses the state!

Q10 If the candidates for President this year were
Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt
Romney, who would you vote for?
Barack Obama............................................. ... 42%
Mitt Romney............................................ ........ 49%
Undecided......................................... .............. 9%

Even Mitt Romney fails to strengthen the GOP hold on a state that John McCain won decisively.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Touché!

Talk about stealing someone's metaphor and turning it on them!

LMAO!

Taking the guys in the white hats, and the guys in the black hats, and switching them. But changing the colors does not change the people wearing them. The blue is still the blue, and the gray is now the red.

Originally Posted by James50

All I know I got from Ken Burns and Shelby Foote with a little Ted Turner thrown in for drama (the story of Chamberlain at Little Round Top was utterly amazing and not something I knew about before Ted Turner's Gettysburg). Its not me that started talking about Pickett's Charge. I just thought I would have a little fun with it.

Fun? Not allowed!

This happened in the 60s and was a Nixon strategy. Its old news yet seems to obsess the left. The important news of current times is the success of the Republicans outside the south in places like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio.

The results are with us still. The salient fact about our times is that the number of counties that have landslide results in national elections is the greatest ever. People are polarized more than ever, and it goes largely by region. It is not strictly south-north by any means; mostly urban-rural. But regions are part of the picture. And in the south and border states, the racial division is clear: whites vote Republican and blacks vote Democratic, by margins of up to 8 or 9 to 1.

The Tea Party has adherents all across the country. While you are focused on these ridiculous debates, there is successful Tea Party organizing going on at the grass roots that could have surprising results in November particularly in congressional and state house elections. And we are not talking about the south.

You're right that the Tea Party is national in scope, and it won across heartland-America in 2010. But the enthusiasm gap is narrowing, and the peoples' movement for progress instead of regression is growing. Progressives can say the same about potential surprising results in November. The amazing thing, given what the Tea Party congress has done to the nation, caring only about their dogma no matter what damage is done to our economy, is that the Democrats only lead by 1 or 2 points in national polls for the congressional election. Half the people are still duped into possibly voting for these multi-generational, rabid extremists whose only concern is lower taxes for themselves, no matter what the cost, and oblivious to any compromise. Half the nation is caught up in a religious ferver for failed ideologies that they refuse to give up in the face of any fact or reason; leading our nation into a 4T that will mean the break-up of the country in the 2020s (and not before), probably along regional lines. We can only hope the people wake up and vote the Republican rascals out before it's too late.

The world I live in is not a regional world. In fact it seems to grow bigger with every passing year. One of my regular reads these days is the online Sacramento Bee. My in-laws live in Wisconsin. A niece is a dues paying special ed teacher in a small Wisconsin town and has marched against Walker in Madison. There is a lot going on everywhere you look. Keep your focus on the south if you wish but I think it is a grossly inadequate, unrealistic, and narrow way of viewing events in this 4T.

James50

And you apparently see that what's happening in these northern states is that the people are waking up to the grave mistake they allowed to happen in 2010. By proportion of the electorate, the signatures on petitions to throw out of office Gov. Walker and his cronies are the largest in history, apparently enough even by themselves to win the recall election that is now coming. The Tea Party is now being matched by a REAL peoples movement.

Concievably the Great Devaluation could become a unifying issue. People who disagree about other issues will come to agree that the economy sucks. Consider the Great Depression and the New Deal.

Originally Posted by JDFP

They're called hard-working American citizens who care about their futures. I find this comparison between good people and a racist bigoted organization to be sickening and you should be ashamed to make the comparison.

Republicans are usually hard-working American citizens who care about their futures. But they are duped, and they are hooked fanatics. They are hooked on a failed ideology that they erroneously think will lower their taxes. They blame welfare queens and "lazy people" who don't work for the money they "steal" from them through taxes and liberals. It is too bad we have almost half a nation composed of these duped folks. Some of them are racists at heart, and many more are social conservatives of various kinds, but it is usually most correct to consider them as having been deceived by Reagan and his associates into believing this tempting nonsense that taxes are theft, and that they are being forced by their government to support programs that don't work. It is easy to hate the government; harder to recognize that government taxes, programs and regulations work, when overseen and designed for the benefit of the people, and are necessary to create a commonwealth that functions well for all its citizens.

I may not agree with liberals (on 95% of issues) - but I'm fairly certain I don't think they're all Stalin or marching to the machinations of the murderous Chairman Mao.

j.p.

Well that's fine, but it is a real problem for you to be wrong 95% of the time!

The real problem is not that people are not polite and call each other bad names. The real problem is, can we continue to be a functioning country when half the people disagree fundamentally with the other half, and won't compromise? The people of the 1850s could not compromise, and it led to civil war. We are headed down that path. People need to see the error of their ways now before it's too late. It is possible for people who disagree to work together and compromise, but it takes two sides to do it. The Republicans need to be voted out and defeated until they become a reasonable group again. People need to wake up from this failed ideology, and support the programs and measures needed to solve our problems and create a prosperous and sustainable society where all have good opportunities, instead of a corrupt society that is ruining the planet with pollution and wars and keeping its citizens in economic decline to benefit a few.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Then there's this story floating around. Ugh! Do you think this is true?

Made in USA Foundation Charges GM with Violating Labeling Laws

LOS ANGELES, Jan. 14, 2011; General Motors, bailed out by U.S. taxpayers and still owned in part by the federal government, is stripping country of origin labels off of its cars at auto shows around the country, says the Made in the USA Foundation. The Made in the USA Foundation has charged GM with violating the American Automobile Labeling Act (AALA) which requires all new cars that are offered for sale to include country of origin information.


The AALA requires new cars to provide information on the window sticker, including where the car was assembled, the U.S. and other country content, where the engine was made and where the transmission was made.


Joel D. Joseph, Chairman of the Made in the USA Foundation, said, "General Motors wants to hide the fact that, even after the government bailout, it has moved production of vehicles offshore. The Cadillac SRX is now made in Mexico. The Buick Regal is made inGermany."


GM claims that the AALA only applies to cars for sale at dealers not at auto shows. Joseph stated that he worked with Senator Barbara Mikulski, who wrote the law, and that the intent of the law was to inform consumers about the country of origin of new cars. Joseph said, "Millions of consumers get their first look at cars at auto shows. The law applies to cars that are 'for sale' and auto show cars, except concept cars. Identical GM cars are for sale at thousands of dealers across the nation, and display vehicles should include country of origin information. The U.S. government saved GM and still owns one-third of the company. General Motors should comply with the intent of the law."

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...14/514637.html

From good old Wiki regarding the auto bailout -

All auto-related industries and after-market service businesses employed approximately 3.1 million people in the United States. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics breaks down the workers into the following segments, as of September 2008: Parts manufacturing-504,000; Repair operations-864,000; Wholesale operations-340,000; Dealer operations-1.2 million; and Manufacturing-114,000. GM directly employs 123,000 in all of North America.[18] An estimated two million people relied on the industry for health care and 775,000 retirees collect auto-industry pensions

Let's say 1/2 of all those jobs dependent on a viable US manufacturing.

So what would you rather have - 1.5 million people employed in the US but with AALA shennagans or 1.5 million more people unemployed but no AALA shenanigans?

I know, I know - everyone wants the 1.5 employed and no shenanigans; but really, if you had only the two choices, what would it be?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Now here is the sort of poll to which I pay attention:

Public Policy Polling

This is a Democratic pollster, but in 2008 and 2010 its results tended to lean more Republican than electoral results. This is for Texas, a state that President Obama lost badly in 2008, to which he has no connections, and in which he has spent little time.



Ordinarily an incumbent can add between 3% and 8% to his approval rating in a state and expect that as an electoral result -- toward the high end if he actively campaigns and toward the low end if he doesn't. I'd lean toward the low end because I can't expect the President to do much campaigning in Texas. If you want to see what a loser looks like, here's one:



Rick Perry can be thankful that he isn't up for re-election.



If Texas were a critical state in 2012, Perry would be of no help as a VP candidate. Like Sarah Palin he would throw red meat to the base while offending everyone else. Texans might conceivably vote for him to be VP just to be rid of him. Let's put it this way -- if his career as Governor were analogous to a Broadway play it might be near the end of its run. At that, the Republicans have others in critical states who could be so used (Brewer in Arizona, Walker in Florida, Kasich in Ohio), and unfortunately for the GOP it can't use all thee.

Note well that President Obama lost the state by 11% in 2008. If Republicans are building a larger base or cutting into Obama support, that should show as an increasing spread between others and President Obama.



For a state unlikely to draw attention from the Obama campaign, the race tightens up with Paul and Santorum. Gingrich even loses the state!



Even Mitt Romney fails to strengthen the GOP hold on a state that John McCain won decisively.

Some awesome analysis. You could give Nate Silver a run for the money!

Even Rupert Murdoch doesn't like the way hedge fund guys make their money!

http://tinyurl.com/7jhhq7n

Rupert Murdoch tweet: Carried interest a 'racket'

I think Romney is in trouble, hey?

Originally Posted by JDFP

Since when does perjury and obstruction of justice become "personal sexual indiscretion"? He wasn't impeached based on a personal sexual indiscretion. He was impeached based upon the felony of perjury in lying to the American people and before a grand jury and obstruction of justice.

Of course, it could just be a matter of what your definition of is is.


j.p.

And that's all it ever was, JP. He was impeached merely because of that statement, according to the records of the proceedings.

He only "lied" based on a definition of intercourse, of what IS "intercourse" and what is not. And it concerned a matter that had no relation whatever to his conduct in office or his policies, but merely a "personal sexual indiscretion". They trapped him into saying publically that he didn't "have an affair" in order to protect his marriage. What "justice" was obstructed? The case was pursued solely because Kenneth Starr and his neo-con friends wanted to get him by any means that they could, no matter what the facts were.

What a total waste of time.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Texans might conceivably vote for him to be VP just to be rid of him.

Being a Texan myself, this might be more true than you know. Don't think I wouldn't be sorely tempted.

Originally Posted by JDFP

By "rebels" you mean Americans committed to their state against an oppressive invasionary force (i.e. the federal gov't). This is one topic we'll just have to agree to disagree regarding as it's not going to lead us anywhere in continuing regarding this matter. You're set in your belief in how you see things occurred as I am - so we'll just have to agree to disagree and bow out regarding this matter.

j.p.

Why were they committed to their state? What "rights" were they protecting?

I could agree that the South had a "right" to seceed. Maybe the North should have let them go. But people in the North felt that slavery was an abomination that at least should not be extended to other states. The South, concerned that slavery might be restricted or taken away, seceeded. Slavery was the matter in question, whatever the legalities were about whether the North was right in restoring the union by force.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Even within the hermatically-sealed fantasy world of what passes as the GOP, it is looking like a clown show. Sure they get their audiences all whipped up about Obama killing jobs and making us look weak internationally; but when their eventual flawed nominee has to back those preposterous claims in front of more circumspect audiences, they'll have to deal with the facts -







AND Obama actually nailed Osama bin Laden

I hope Obama makes maximum use of these charts and stats! And that the people are receptive enough to facts. Remember James, the left is fact-based. Can the rest of America follow suit? To what degree? That's the question.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Illinois is in the Sun Belt?

That's precisley the problem. Some usurper stole their Presidency! Starting in October 1963, you have ...
LBJ - Texas
Nixon - California
Ford - California (no, not Michigan)
Carter - Georgia
Reagan - California
Bush I - Texas
Clinton - Arkansas
Bush II - Texas
... ending in January 2009. That's over 45 years.

Regarding the impeachment, James, Newt was planning it in the fall of 1998 and certainly calling for it. After that election he was deposed and replaced by Bob Livingston, I believe, of Louisiana. But he certainly was behind it all the way--how could he not be? If it makes you feel better to think that Clinton wasn't impeached about sex, I can't help that.

Livingston had to resign when it turned out, in the middle of the impeachment controversy, that he had had an affair with a lobbyist. Dennis Hastert became speaker.

I will be delighted if Obama rebounds and is re-elected--actually, that's the wrong word. I'll be enormously relieved, not delighted. (See the latest blog post, below, to find out why.)

Incidentally, Newt told his first wife he was leaving her after she was diagnosed with cancer and told his second wife he was leaving her after she was diagnosed with MS. It seems you had better not get sick if you're going to marry Newt. Or maybe marrying him will make you sick? Good luck to Calista, to whom he is apparently very devoted. (A campaign aide has just been quoted that he bought her all that jewelry because she was unhappy he was running for President.)

At least one ex-wife is not going to vote for Newt. . .

Originally Posted by JDFP

The firebombing of Dresden and nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was done against enemy combatants - not American citizens standing up for their states against an oppressive and bloated federal government who infringed on their homeland by waging warfare by occupation. I'd go even one further and say we should have opened up consideration for keeping on in a straight-march to Moscow after the Nazis were defeated, using low-yield tactical nuclear weapons in N. Korea and Vietnam as well, and doing what we necessarily must do as an American nation against those who would attempt to harm this nation.

What you've presented is a non-comparison as it's not Americans against enemy combatants but Americans against an oppressive force of other Americans on native soil. The only victor of the Civil War was bloodshed of brother against brother.

j.p.

Sorry, I have to correct more of your mistakes.

The Russians had done nothing to our country in 1945, and were no threat to us. Nor had they taken over North Korea and Vietnam, nor did they ever take over Vietnam (a very familiar myth that divided our country in the 1960s; a division that persists today). Russian invasion of Korea in 1945 was specifically permitted and encouraged by the allies in order to defeat Japan. Maybe afterwards we let them take over too much of Europe, which they had just conquered as our allies against Germany, but they did it to provide a buffer between themselves and another German invasion. And the Russians could not have taken Eastern Europe if the West had not generously supplied them with tons and tons of munitions.

The citizens of Dixie were not Americans; they had seceeded. They were citizens of another nation. However, being mostly anti-war, I don't necessarily condone or agree with the methods the North used to defeat Dixie, or the need to fight the war in order to force them to be Americans again.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Without doubt it is possible to like President Obama and abhor his policies. I saw part of the Republican debate and I noticed that all of the main opposition to President Obama shown by the GOP candidates was based on issues of policy -- accelerating the production of energy irrespective of environmental concerns, gutting the effectiveness of unions, curtailing welfare, and effectively shifting the burden for taxes to the non-rich so that the super-rich could "create more prosperity". Elitist economics that would create a cheap-labor, environment-wrecking system in which the economic elites have complete control of anyone not already rich is no more inherently racist than are the laws against heroin and cocaine. The GOP is not so much racist as classist. The GOP has no problem with Kobe Bryant or Oprah Winfrey making astronomic incomes. I look at the GOP candidates and I see a longing to return to economic norms from before the Great Depression.

A simple fact for us all: the 1920s really were an awful decade. It is arguable that the late 1930s, still recognized as part of the Great Depression, were already better than the late 1920s by all standards except stock prices. Add to that: the Gilded Age was a nasty time for people who weren't rich or middle-class... and the Gilded Age had only a tiny middle class.

It is not racist to believe that we should have an economy in which 25% of the workforce is domestic servants of the upper 3% of income-takers. I look at GOP economics, and that is what I foresee.

I appreciate your comments and I don't long for a return to the Gilded Age. A large middle class is highly desirable. It just seems to me that free enterprise with less government restrictions would be better for job creation. ( The recent hold on the oil pipeline from Canada is a good example). I also do not support unrestrained corporations. We always need a balance of power so that everyone can benefit. I think that having 25% of the workforce as domestic servants would be a disaster for the USA, but I don't think that would happen even if the GOP wins in 2012. I do hope that Romney wins the GOP nomination.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

I don't think Obama "gave" GM to the UAW but I tend to think saving UAW jobs and their legacy wages and benefits was a large factor in the decision to bail out GM to the detriment of bondholders who should have been first in line.

Bond holders got theirs. It was the stockholders that lost money.

I find it ironic that anyone in the South has the chutzpah to whine about subsidies, when the entire region has been a ward of the state for decades. The South rose because FDR insisted that it should.

I was reading about the soon-to-be-announced program to deepen shipping channels to accommodate the new post Panamax ships. The article listed all the ports on the east coast that might qualify for assitance. Even Balitmore was assumed to be too far north to qualify for Federal funding. It was assumed that the ports in contention were Charleston and Savannah. BTW, the port of Hampton Roads is already deep enough, due to previous Federal funding. Other than the port that's read to go, the port of New York is the one in the right location to support major populatin centers. Baltimore is pretty good too.

Originally Posted by playwrite

From good old Wiki regarding the auto bailout -



Let's say 1/2 of all those jobs dependent on a viable US manufacturing.

So what would you rather have - 1.5 million people employed in the US but with AALA shennagans or 1.5 million more people unemployed but no AALA shenanigans?

I know, I know - everyone wants the 1.5 employed and no shenanigans; but really, if you had only the two choices, what would it be?

I prefer fewer shenanigans. Why do we put up with half truths from corporations? Especially when they are given our money to work for our benefit. It's like giving someone money to build you a home but end up getting half of what you paid for.

I appreciate your information about GM.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

That's precisley the problem. Some usurper stole their Presidency! Starting in October 1963, you have ...

...

Ford - California (no, not Michigan)

Depends on your definition. Ford was born in Nebraska but was in Grand Rapids by his high school years. He went to the University of Michigan and served in Congress representing Michigan from 1949 to 1973 -- and that's where he was when he was selected to be Nixon's VP after Spiro Agnew resigned in disgrace.

He lived in California after his presidency and died at his home there, but it seems like quite a stretch to me for California to claim his where the presidency is concerned.

Originally Posted by James50

Newt Gingrich was born in Harrisburg, PA and was basically an army brat who moved to Europe when he was 13. He did not come to Georgia until he was 17, but did graduate from a Georgia high school. You can tell by the way he talks that he is not a southern native.

James50

Considering his political career, he's a son of the south now. The I-can't-vote-for-Romney comments I mentioned earlier were even echoed by two respondants when Rich Santorum was mentioned. I guess a true believer from Pennsylvania is not quite adequate. Admit it; the south is far and away the most region-centric part of the country. I've lived in Virginia for 40 years, but I'm still that guy from New York.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

[/LEFT][/B][/SIZE]There's something to be said for rejecting compromise for its own sake, just so we can act all civil and buddy-buddy and "get along."

To me the problem isn't that we don't have enough compromise -- it's that on many issues, there *is* some common ground on the two sides that often isn't addressed because of the overemphasis on their points of strong disagreement, and in the attitude that one side or the other won't even come to the table unless certain sacred cows are "off the table."

When both sides view each other as enemies rather than as fellow citizens who have different views on many things, they won't even work together to deal with the stuff they agree about. That is where the toxicity and dysfunctional nature of our Congress is really an obstacle to progress.

I agree, with two caveats. First, it is the Republicans who today most often will not compromise. They are hooked on an ideology, while the Democrats and progressives are more flexible about theirs, such as it is.

Second, what Deb was saying is that, as a tactic, Newt is (ironically) probably right; the left needs to win more people over to their side, instead of just giving in and appearing to be weak, not really being committed to their point of view in the face of opposition and obstacles.

Compromise takes two, and both need to start from a position of not giving up before you start. If we are to create the world we want, we need to have visions and goals, and to work for them. And just because there are two sides, does not mean the truth lies in the middle. Sometimes we need to be really dedicated to convincing people that our side is correct. Sometimes a party that is committed uncompromisingly to the wrong policies, needs to be voted out of office.

And it does help to see that all sides are people, to look beyond rhetoric and slogans, and see how each side can get its real needs and desires met in a win-win solution, and to understand where the other is coming from. And to see that there is some common ground. Sometimes with the right attitude on both sides, this can be done.