New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

HuffPo abandons Obama, names ‘democrats of the future’ . . .



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/17/future-democratic-candidates_n_6152346.html?utm_hp_ref=miami&ir=Miami

I bet you still remember when Obama when on National TV to tell people to STOP watching TV and start reading Huffington Post instead, don’t you? Well, HuffPo appears to have forgotten the favor he did them. Less than 2 weeks after Obama’s policies and supporters were repudiated at the polls, HuffPo has a piece touting ‘democrats of the future’ (link above).

I’m all for turning the page on Obama, Reid, and Pelosi of course. But the problem is their policies, not their names. Huffpo apparently doesn’t get this, and has served up a bunch of bizarre picks as the so called saviors of the party. If you want your mind blown, read the whole article, but below are the highlights of their top picks to rehabilitate the democrat brand . . .

· Jason Carter – yep, the grandson of Jimmy Carter. His claim to fame (other than bloodline) according to HuffPo? He LOST his bid to become Georgia’s governor in 2014, but hasn’t stubbed his toe in the 2 weeks since.

· Michelle Nunn – the daughter of Sam Nunn. She also sought to reinstate the ‘born to rule’ class in Georgia, but was denied in her bid for a senate seat. Voters decided to go with something more substantial than name recognition.

· Beau Biden – yep, one of the VP’s kids. He’s running for governor of Delware in 2016 – the smallest and most irrelevant state in the nation. He’s never held a significant office before. Joe Biden’s other kid – “Hunter” – just got kicked of the national guard for cocaine use. Joe Biden himself – age 72 – still thinks he’s running for president in 2016.

· Eric Garcetti – Elected Los Angeles Mayor in 2013. He has taken no action to tame school dropouts or narcotics in Los Angeles, but did quickly raise his hand to shelter illegal aliens allowed in by Obama – a program which about 2/3rds of the nation doesn’t like. How does this make him the future of the democratic party? It sounds exactly like what voters just rejected at the polls.

· The Castro Brothers – Julian (Obama’s HUD secretary) and his brother Juaquin, just elected to congress from Texas. Wait – Juaquin hasn’t even served a day in office yet, and he’s the future???? INSANE !!!!

In short – HuffPo thinks the american people deserve to be ruled by the sons, daughters, brothers, wives, and arch-supporters of the current crop of miscreants who got us into this mess.

There is no discussion by HuffPo of what policy changes might be advisable – how to stem school dropouts; put people back to work in jobs that PAY taxes rather than are paid by them; or address the massive federal deficit of $170,000 per american family.

It’s all about cult of personality. Reality check - if the spawn of career politicians are so worthy, why were Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Jerry Brown, and all those guys named "Daley" such losers?

I agree with Obama – people SHOULD read HuffPo – if only to educate themselves on what a sorry excuse this website is for substantive political analysis.

Full disclosure - my disdain for "political bloodlines" runs across both parties. Dubya did the nation few favors, governance wise. Jeb should keep fishing or whatever he did for the past 10 years. Mitt Romney might be smarter than his daddy, but wasn't smart enough to get elected 2012, so we don't need to see that film again in 2016. At least none of the Reagan kids think they should be living off our tax dollars in washington.

full disclosure part 2 - yeah, I know the photo above makes Beau Biden look every bit as crazy as his dad. That's entirely the point.
 
Great post as always ASOT. I just want to add that Eric Garcetti is the son of Gil Garcetti, who was the staggeringly incompetent LA County District Attorney who presided over the OJ Simpson fiasco and, despite letting a double murderer walk scot free, was of course reelected by the Gruber-ite voters of Los Angeles...
 

Arkady

President


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/17/future-democratic-candidates_n_6152346.html?utm_hp_ref=miami&ir=Miami

I bet you still remember when Obama when on National TV to tell people to STOP watching TV and start reading Huffington Post instead, don’t you? Well, HuffPo appears to have forgotten the favor he did them. Less than 2 weeks after Obama’s policies and supporters were repudiated at the polls, HuffPo has a piece touting ‘democrats of the future’ (link above).

I’m all for turning the page on Obama, Reid, and Pelosi of course. But the problem is their policies, not their names. Huffpo apparently doesn’t get this, and has served up a bunch of bizarre picks as the so called saviors of the party. If you want your mind blown, read the whole article, but below are the highlights of their top picks to rehabilitate the democrat brand . . .

· Jason Carter – yep, the grandson of Jimmy Carter. His claim to fame (other than bloodline) according to HuffPo? He LOST his bid to become Georgia’s governor in 2014, but hasn’t stubbed his toe in the 2 weeks since.

· Michelle Nunn – the daughter of Sam Nunn. She also sought to reinstate the ‘born to rule’ class in Georgia, but was denied in her bid for a senate seat. Voters decided to go with something more substantial than name recognition.

· Beau Biden – yep, one of the VP’s kids. He’s running for governor of Delware in 2016 – the smallest and most irrelevant state in the nation. He’s never held a significant office before. Joe Biden’s other kid – “Hunter” – just got kicked of the national guard for cocaine use. Joe Biden himself – age 72 – still thinks he’s running for president in 2016.

· Eric Garcetti – Elected Los Angeles Mayor in 2013. He has taken no action to tame school dropouts or narcotics in Los Angeles, but did quickly raise his hand to shelter illegal aliens allowed in by Obama – a program which about 2/3rds of the nation doesn’t like. How does this make him the future of the democratic party? It sounds exactly like what voters just rejected at the polls.

· The Castro Brothers – Julian (Obama’s HUD secretary) and his brother Juaquin, just elected to congress from Texas. Wait – Juaquin hasn’t even served a day in office yet, and he’s the future???? INSANE !!!!

In short – HuffPo thinks the american people deserve to be ruled by the sons, daughters, brothers, wives, and arch-supporters of the current crop of miscreants who got us into this mess.

There is no discussion by HuffPo of what policy changes might be advisable – how to stem school dropouts; put people back to work in jobs that PAY taxes rather than are paid by them; or address the massive federal deficit of $170,000 per american family.

It’s all about cult of personality. Reality check - if the spawn of career politicians are so worthy, why were Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Jerry Brown, and all those guys named "Daley" such losers?

I agree with Obama – people SHOULD read HuffPo – if only to educate themselves on what a sorry excuse this website is for substantive political analysis.

Full disclosure - my disdain for "political bloodlines" runs across both parties. Dubya did the nation few favors, governance wise. Jeb should keep fishing or whatever he did for the past 10 years. Mitt Romney might be smarter than his daddy, but wasn't smart enough to get elected 2012, so we don't need to see that film again in 2016. At least none of the Reagan kids think they should be living off our tax dollars in washington.

full disclosure part 2 - yeah, I know the photo above makes Beau Biden look every bit as crazy as his dad. That's entirely the point.
Given what an impressive run past and current Democrats have had, in terms of nearly all indicators of national well-being improving during Democratic administrations, while worsening under Republican ones, I can understand why they'd think you can replicate that great success just by picking people with blood or relationship ties to those responsible for the past successes. But, I don't share that dynastic view of life. I think we need only look to GW Bush to see how the son of a fairly decent politician can lead this nation to unmitigated catastrophe. Sometimes the apple falls very far from the tree, so I'd like to judge politicians by their own records. If we'd done that -- looking at GW Bush's run of miserable failures and crooked dealings -- we might have spared ourselves a lot of trauma.
 
Great post as always ASOT. I just want to add that Eric Garcetti is the son of Gil Garcetti, who was the staggeringly incompetent LA County District Attorney who presided over the OJ Simpson fiasco and, despite letting a double murderer walk scot free, was of course reelected by the Gruber-ite voters of Los Angeles...
i did not know that about garcetti.

i remain skeptical that los angeles tried very hard to convict simpson.

remember, he actually confessed to the crime - while in custody - and it was recorded.

i'm not an attorney, but i'm pretty sure i could have gotten that evidence in front of the jury by some means or another.
 
Given what an impressive run past and current Democrats have had, in terms of nearly all indicators of national well-being improving during Democratic administrations, while worsening under Republican ones, I can understand why they'd think you can replicate that great success just by picking people with blood or relationship ties to those responsible for the past successes. But, I don't share that dynastic view of life. I think we need only look to GW Bush to see how the son of a fairly decent politician can lead this nation to unmitigated catastrophe. Sometimes the apple falls very far from the tree, so I'd like to judge politicians by their own records. If we'd done that -- looking at GW Bush's run of miserable failures and crooked dealings -- we might have spared ourselves a lot of trauma.
if HuffPo wants to go with successful bloodlines, wouldn't that pretty much rule out any descendants of carter or biden?

hillary is not a blood relative of bubba, but is campaigning on the theory that she can reassemble the "team" her husband had in the white house.

maybe so, but who wants a cabinet where the average age of the survivors is 77?
 

Zam-Zam

Senator
Given what an impressive run past and current Democrats have had, in terms of nearly all indicators of national well-being improving during Democratic administrations, while worsening under Republican ones, I can understand why they'd think you can replicate that great success just by picking people with blood or relationship ties to those responsible for the past successes. But, I don't share that dynastic view of life. I think we need only look to GW Bush to see how the son of a fairly decent politician can lead this nation to unmitigated catastrophe. Sometimes the apple falls very far from the tree, so I'd like to judge politicians by their own records. If we'd done that -- looking at GW Bush's run of miserable failures and crooked dealings -- we might have spared ourselves a lot of trauma.

Republicans are awful. The only ones worse are Democrats; no one does miserable failure like they do....:>)
 

bdtex

Administrator
Staff member


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/17/future-democratic-candidates_n_6152346.html?utm_hp_ref=miami&ir=Miami

I bet you still remember when Obama when on National TV to tell people to STOP watching TV and start reading Huffington Post instead, don’t you? Well, HuffPo appears to have forgotten the favor he did them. Less than 2 weeks after Obama’s policies and supporters were repudiated at the polls, HuffPo has a piece touting ‘democrats of the future’ (link above).

I’m all for turning the page on Obama, Reid, and Pelosi of course. But the problem is their policies, not their names. Huffpo apparently doesn’t get this, and has served up a bunch of bizarre picks as the so called saviors of the party. If you want your mind blown, read the whole article, but below are the highlights of their top picks to rehabilitate the democrat brand . . .

· Jason Carter – yep, the grandson of Jimmy Carter. His claim to fame (other than bloodline) according to HuffPo? He LOST his bid to become Georgia’s governor in 2014, but hasn’t stubbed his toe in the 2 weeks since.

· Michelle Nunn – the daughter of Sam Nunn. She also sought to reinstate the ‘born to rule’ class in Georgia, but was denied in her bid for a senate seat. Voters decided to go with something more substantial than name recognition.

· Beau Biden – yep, one of the VP’s kids. He’s running for governor of Delware in 2016 – the smallest and most irrelevant state in the nation. He’s never held a significant office before. Joe Biden’s other kid – “Hunter” – just got kicked of the national guard for cocaine use. Joe Biden himself – age 72 – still thinks he’s running for president in 2016.

· Eric Garcetti – Elected Los Angeles Mayor in 2013. He has taken no action to tame school dropouts or narcotics in Los Angeles, but did quickly raise his hand to shelter illegal aliens allowed in by Obama – a program which about 2/3rds of the nation doesn’t like. How does this make him the future of the democratic party? It sounds exactly like what voters just rejected at the polls.

· The Castro Brothers – Julian (Obama’s HUD secretary) and his brother Juaquin, just elected to congress from Texas. Wait – Juaquin hasn’t even served a day in office yet, and he’s the future???? INSANE !!!!

In short – HuffPo thinks the american people deserve to be ruled by the sons, daughters, brothers, wives, and arch-supporters of the current crop of miscreants who got us into this mess.

There is no discussion by HuffPo of what policy changes might be advisable – how to stem school dropouts; put people back to work in jobs that PAY taxes rather than are paid by them; or address the massive federal deficit of $170,000 per american family.

It’s all about cult of personality. Reality check - if the spawn of career politicians are so worthy, why were Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Jerry Brown, and all those guys named "Daley" such losers?

I agree with Obama – people SHOULD read HuffPo – if only to educate themselves on what a sorry excuse this website is for substantive political analysis.

Full disclosure - my disdain for "political bloodlines" runs across both parties. Dubya did the nation few favors, governance wise. Jeb should keep fishing or whatever he did for the past 10 years. Mitt Romney might be smarter than his daddy, but wasn't smart enough to get elected 2012, so we don't need to see that film again in 2016. At least none of the Reagan kids think they should be living off our tax dollars in washington.

full disclosure part 2 - yeah, I know the photo above makes Beau Biden look every bit as crazy as his dad. That's entirely the point.
I turned the page on HuffPo after the 2008 election. Their coverage of that election was pathetic.
 

Arkady

President
Republicans are awful. The only ones worse are Democrats; no one does miserable failure like they do....:>)
If that's merely an aesthetic judgment, on your part, I have no response, since there's no arguing with aesthetics. If, however, you want to look at it more scientifically, by actually comparing measurable results, you'll see a clear track record of things improving under Democratic administrations, compared to a much spottier record for Republican administrations.
 

Zam-Zam

Senator
If that's merely an aesthetic judgment, on your part, I have no response, since there's no arguing with aesthetics. If, however, you want to look at it more scientifically, by actually comparing measurable results, you'll see a clear track record of things improving under Democratic administrations, compared to a much spottier record for Republican administrations.
No. You're wrong.
 

Arkady

President
if HuffPo wants to go with successful bloodlines, wouldn't that pretty much rule out any descendants of carter or biden?

hillary is not a blood relative of bubba, but is campaigning on the theory that she can reassemble the "team" her husband had in the white house.

maybe so, but who wants a cabinet where the average age of the survivors is 77?
No. As you'll recall, Carter presided over an outstanding rate of job creation, decent real GDP growth rate, and the only serious progress towards Middle East peace we've had in our lifetimes. He also appointed the Fed Chairman who broke the back of inflation, kept us out of any major wars, and presided over a slight decline in the federal budget deficit. His era doesn't look terrific compared to other Democratic presidential eras of the modern period, but that's just because the competition is so stiff. His run was quite decent, overall. As for Biden, he's a VP, and before that was just one of 100 Senators, so it's harder to judge. But, if we were to judge him by the Obama era, he'd look quite good. Unemployment is down, real GDP per capita is up, stocks are way up, deficits are way down, violent crime has been plummeting, US approval ratings abroad have increased greatly, and so on.

As for Hillary Clinton, she's far from my first choice, but given the truly outstanding record of the Clinton presidency, it would be foolish of her not to campaign on the idea that she could replicate that success. One of the huge mistakes both Gore and Kerry made is trying to distance themselves from Clinton. From their inside-the-beltway perspective, Clinton looked poisonous, because Beltway insiders never liked him. But, for Americans generally, he was extremely popular. In fact, he had the highest approval ratings of any departing president in our time.
 

Arkady

President
No. You're wrong.
I am demonstrably correct about the numbers. You're free to argue that aesthetic considerations matter more than actual outcomes, or that the outcomes are just part of some vast coincidence and should be disregarded, but the numbers are what they are.
 

Zam-Zam

Senator
I am demonstrably correct about the numbers. You're free to argue that aesthetic considerations matter more than actual outcomes, or that the outcomes are just part of some vast coincidence and should be disregarded, but the numbers are what they are.
No. You're still wrong.
 
If that's merely an aesthetic judgment, on your part, I have no response, since there's no arguing with aesthetics. If, however, you want to look at it more scientifically, by actually comparing measurable results, you'll see a clear track record of things improving under Democratic administrations, compared to a much spottier record for Republican administrations.
this conclusion is only possible if you ignore the following presidencies

- FDR
- Eisenhower
- LBJ
- Carter
-Reagan
- Obama
 
No. As you'll recall, Carter presided over an outstanding rate of job creation, decent real GDP growth rate, and the only serious progress towards Middle East peace we've had in our lifetimes. He also appointed the Fed Chairman who broke the back of inflation, kept us out of any major wars, and presided over a slight decline in the federal budget deficit. His era doesn't look terrific compared to other Democratic presidential eras of the modern period, but that's just because the competition is so stiff. His run was quite decent, overall. As for Biden, he's a VP, and before that was just one of 100 Senators, so it's harder to judge. But, if we were to judge him by the Obama era, he'd look quite good. Unemployment is down, real GDP per capita is up, stocks are way up, deficits are way down, violent crime has been plummeting, US approval ratings abroad have increased greatly, and so on.

As for Hillary Clinton, she's far from my first choice, but given the truly outstanding record of the Clinton presidency, it would be foolish of her not to campaign on the idea that she could replicate that success. One of the huge mistakes both Gore and Kerry made is trying to distance themselves from Clinton. From their inside-the-beltway perspective, Clinton looked poisonous, because Beltway insiders never liked him. But, for Americans generally, he was extremely popular. In fact, he had the highest approval ratings of any departing president in our time.
isn't carter the guy who appeared on TV, in a "mr rogers" sweater, and told us to turn down the thermostats, bundle up, and stop using our credit cards to survive.

yeah - he was a great one
 

Jen

Senator
· The Castro Brothers – Julian (Obama’s HUD secretary) and his brother Juaquin, just elected to congress from Texas. Wait – Juaquin hasn’t even served a day in office yet, and he’s the future???? INSANE !!!!
Doesn't matter.
Remember?
Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize for potential, not what he had ever EVER done.
 

Arkady

President
No. You're still wrong.
I understand that you're not emotionally prepared to accept the facts, but they remain facts.

Let's just take one selection of data to demonstrate the idea. I could go with other options, like change of deficits, or GDP growth rate, or job creation rates, or violent crime rates, or stock market growth rates, or what have you, but, for ease, I'll go with unemployment rates, using January-January numbers (presidencies start January 20, so there isn't a clear monthly break). Using Series ID
LNS14000000, from the BLS, which starts in 1948, here is the change in unemployment rate for each presidential era:

Truman -0.5 (6 years)
Eisenhower +3.7 (8 years)
Kennedy/Johnson -3.2 (8 years)
Nixon/Ford +4.1 (8 years)
Carter 0.0 (4 years)
Reagan/Bush -0.2 (12 years)
Clinton -3.1 (8 years)
GW Bush +3.6 (8 years)
Obama -2.0 (5.75 years)

Based on that data, in the average year of a Democratic president, unemployment declined by 0.277 points. In the average year of a Republican president, unemployment rose by 0.311 points.

As I said, that's just one data point. We could do similar analyses of stock market performance, and so on. But, time and again, you'd see that the nation did much better with Democrats in the White House. And the amazing thing is, in a great many of the cases (as with this one), even the very worst of the Democratic eras tend to be almost on par with the very best of the Republican eras.
 

Zam-Zam

Senator
I understand that you're not emotionally prepared to accept the facts, but they remain facts.

Let's just take one selection of data to demonstrate the idea. I could go with other options, like change of deficits, or GDP growth rate, or job creation rates, or violent crime rates, or stock market growth rates, or what have you, but, for ease, I'll go with unemployment rates, using January-January numbers (presidencies start January 20, so there isn't a clear monthly break). Using Series ID
LNS14000000, from the BLS, which starts in 1948, here is the change in unemployment rate for each presidential era:

Truman -0.5 (6 years)
Eisenhower +3.7 (8 years)
Kennedy/Johnson -3.2 (8 years)
Nixon/Ford +4.1 (8 years)
Carter 0.0 (4 years)
Reagan/Bush -0.2 (12 years)
Clinton -3.1 (8 years)
GW Bush +3.6 (8 years)
Obama -2.0 (5.75 years)

Based on that data, in the average year of a Democratic president, unemployment declined by 0.277 points. In the average year of a Republican president, unemployment rose by 0.311 points.

As I said, that's just one data point. We could do similar analyses of stock market performance, and so on. But, time and again, you'd see that the nation did much better with Democrats in the White House. And the amazing thing is, in a great many of the cases (as with this one), even the very worst of the Democratic eras tend to be almost on par with the very best of the Republican eras.
Nice try, but still wrong.
 
Top