Disqus - Latest Comments for JDScott

Re: Is This Really Plagiarism? No

JDScott — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:54:45 -0000

Captain, I agree this is not plagiarism. The point here though is that Obama is a fake. He's running as an empty suit. All his speeches are carefully choreographed and scripted. His rhetoric is hollow and only created to elect him president. Not to accomplish anything else.

Re: The Google President

JDScott — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:47:06 -0000

Fred, while momentum is important, old networks are even more so. Obama will win again this week in the "Potomac Primaries" but will lose two large states in Pennsylvania and Ohio. These two are white, union states, where Clinton's name and organization will carry the day and where she still has huge polling leads.

The two states to watch are Wisconsin and Texas. Wisconsin is very independent leaning (a purple state) in which Obama is closing the gap. RealClearPolitics still has Clinton with a double digit lead in Texas, and it's hard to see how Obama can win the nomination losing Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Obama has done well in the south, but it has been done with the strength of the black vote. In Texas, there will be a large hispanic vote, where Clinton has had a huge edge over Obama so far.

Also, Obama can't just win the delegate count by a small margin, otherwise the superdelegates that Clinton has been lobbying for years will stay with her. Obama has to win by that much more to convince the superdelegates that supporting Clinton would spell disaster for them.

Re: Quote Of The Day

JDScott — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:09:19 -0000

Non-politician? He made the ultimate flip-flop. Life long Democrat becomes a Republican to run in the shadow of post 9-11Guiliani then becomes on Independent in advance of a potential presidential run.

Re: State Of The Union Live Blog

JDScott — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:12:55 -0000

My attempt at HTML didn't seem to work. Is there anyway to edit my post?

Re: State Of The Union Live Blog

JDScott — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:12:06 -0000

[Quote Ed]Do you ever wonder if the President (regardless of who he is) has to fight the impulse to just walk in and say, "Can't we just get this over with?" I'll bet Ross Perot would have done it.[/Quote]

I will have serious respect for the next President who sends in the State of the Union via Post Office.

Re: How Do We Solve A Problem Like Bill Clinton?

JDScott — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:52:12 -0000

I'm wondering if you are joking?

As many prominent Democratic members of congress have stated, Bill Clinton is a former president and needs to act like one - not that another Democrat, Jimmy Carter, does either - but despite Hillary's attempts, one cannot compare Michelle Obama to President Bill Clinton.

Re: How Do We Solve A Problem Like Bill Clinton?

JDScott — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:47:01 -0000

No doubt Obama is a class act. However, check out his web site. On the issues he is no different than Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi. His White House would also have many of the same people that ran the halls during the Bill Clinton's administration.

I admire Obama's character, however if you are unhappy with McCain's record on conservative issues, voting for a liberal Democrat, regardless of his high character, isn't going to be the solution.

Re: Can Obama Do It?

JDScott — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:39:45 -0000

I can't recall where I read/saw this thought but I'll look for it. However, someone made an excellent point that the biggest reason Obama has made it this far is that many of the better candidates (experience / command of the issues) were scared away by the Clinton machine and money but they misread the situation and Clinton was as invincible as many thought.

If he had been the in the race, it is likely that Mark Warner would be leading now. He is a smart, articulate moderate Democratic candidate with business and gubernatorial experience in a semi-southern state (Virginia). In many ways he's a Democratic Mitt Romney - although Warner seems much more genuine.

Obama seemingly got in the race to get a VP slot and run for president in 2016. However, dissatisfaction with and missteps by Clinton kept the money rolling in and enabled Obama to win Iowa and South Carolina.

Re: Can Obama Do It?

JDScott — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:32:24 -0000

Looking at the national polls on Real Clear Politics Obama and McCain are running evenly (slight edge to Obama) in a head-to-head matchup. And, moving to a general election McCain would be more likely to gain in popularity. He's had to play down his moderate attributes (positive in a general election) and talk-up his more conservative attributes (negative attributes) in an effort to win over conservative primary voters. This will switch in a general election, improving his popularity nationwide, winning over more independent voters and even some Democrats - especially those who value experience.

Conversely, Obama is going to have a bit more trouble. His primary message has been about changing the political atmosphere (which will play well in a general election, although less so against McCain or even Romney than Clinton). However, he's managed to avoid talking at length about tough issues because the Democrats are so aligned on key issues like Iraq (with Clinton offering something slightly different), the economy, and health care.

His message of bipartisanship and positivity is going to be harder to maintain when he is forced to fight over significant differences in the big issues that affect this nation.

Re: Why I Don't Like The iPod Touch

JDScott — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:12:24 -0000

Not to sound negative, by why did you buy one in the first place when the new Nano and Classic were announced right along side the Touch?

It was clear from the iPhone that the iPhone / Touch were not the "best iPod available" as Steve Jobs claimed.

Personally, I like the portable WiFi web browsing and larger screen for watching videos. I also have a 160GB Classic so that I can take my entire music / video / photo collection with me.

Re: FEC on the Injured Reserve Bench

JDScott — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:17:28 -0000

A couple quick points:

The FEC has an equal number of commissioners from either party, unlike other presidentially appointed positions (i.e. Attorney General). Therefore, beyond traditional advice and consent, the Democrats get to nominate 4 of the 8 commissioners. Since there are an equal number of appointees for each party - unlike a single individual - parties have respected the nominees of one another. Democratic opposition to Spadkovsky , and an attempt to have a vote on nominees separately, is a clear attempt at pandering to the far left.

Gerrymandering, as annoying as it is, is not illegal. Therefore this redistricting - along with requiring an ID to vote in Georgia - should be left up to the states. Democrats don't seem too concerned with Democratic state legislatures carving up states to their advantage, making their objections in this case seem nothing more than partisan animosity to Delay's leadership in redistricting Texas to cement GOP representation.

Instead of pulling a partisan stunt like blocking this nomination, congressional Democrats should pass a law prohibiting Gerrymandering. They won't do this off course because it would put many Democratic gerrymandered districts in jeopardy.

This move by the Democrats is partisan grand standing and the Republicans should continue to hold up the process until Democrats live up to the long standing gentleman's agreement that each party honors the selection of one another.

Re: Hillary Responds To The Loss, Badly

JDScott — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:28:58 -0000

I've got to think the more she champions experience and her ability to deal with world crises the worse she is making things for herself if she wins the nomination.

As Ed pointed out, while her experience and risk management may look good compared to Obama and Edwards it won't look that good come general election time especially if she's up against McCain or Guiliani. And while they lack foreign policy experience Romney and Huckabee have executive experience she does not have and could add foreign policy bonafides through a smart VP choice.

Re: Iowa Caucus: The Democrats

JDScott — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 01:42:41 -0000

I think Clinton is too reliant on the Democratic aristocracy at a time when the country (people of all political affiliations) is getting tired of partisan politics and political insiders.

http://p-shift.blogspot.com/

Re: Push Poll Investigation Surfaces

JDScott — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:01:29 -0000

Ed,

Are we certain that the end financier will be a campaign and not a semi-anonymous 527?

Thanks

Re: Did The US Betray Bhutto?

JDScott — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:59:43 -0000

Why is the Western media so taken with Bhutto? Is it because she's a western educated aristocrat who mingled with many of them at Ivy league parties? This is a serious question. It's easy to discount Novak since he routinely publishes rumor, innuendo, and just plain fiction in order to get noticed, but this is a world wide issue.

Her death is tragic, but she was a twice deposed corrupt leader who has been angling to get back to power for years. And the passing of the mantle to her husband and son show just how uncommitted she and her supporters are. No doubt her claims to the State Department that the US wasn't acting as an honest broker was designed to get the US to help her gain greater power.

While the State Dept hoped she would bring secularists together and marginalize the power of the the Taliban and Islamic extremest, there is no evidence that she wouldn't have done the opposite. In many countries fundamentalist Islam has risen to power because they are viewed as non-corrupt populist leaders in contrast to self enriching, corrupt leaders exactly like Bhutto.

Re: Did The US Betray Bhutto?

JDScott — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:44:18 -0000

The primary difference is that regardless of how our politicians abuse the system to get re-elected and enrich themselves, they are limited to a certain degree by the system and if/when they are convicted of a crime or voted out of office they respect the rule of law.

Musharraf (and Bhutto for that matter) respect no authority above their own. They are happy to ignore the will of the people and unilaterally ignore or change laws. Even Nixon resigned in the face of impeachment and conviction. And yes, Al Gore sued to overturn the results of the electoral college and the elected representatives of Florida but he respected (unhappily) the decision of the Supreme Court.

No matter how bad our political battles get or how angry, we can peacefully transfer power from one party to another and continue to govern (in our limited manner). Pakistan cannot say the same thing!

Re: New Video Shows Bhutto Shot

JDScott — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:28:36 -0000

Agreed. Although my point is that her reaction mimics those of the bodyguards who, as far as I know, were not shot. Therefore, her movements, and the "lifting" of her hair and scarf are explainable by her natural reaction to the sound of gun shots and is not stand alone proof that she was hit by the shots.

I also think she should have taken her own security more seriously. Given the previous assassination attempts it is inexplicable that she would stick her head out of an armored car in a massive crowd like that.

This is a tragedy regardless.

Re: New Video Shows Bhutto Shot

JDScott — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:22:44 -0000

I'm sorry, please explain how this is definitive proof of anything.

Her hair and scarf rise as her head jerks down and to the right. This makes sense, if she were to quickly duck her down and to the right her hair and scarf would "lift up" just as is seen in the video without any other outside force acting on it.

You will also notice that the men standing on the back of the car directly behind Bhutto duck down and to the right also suggesting that this is the natural reaction to hearing the gun shots, or perhaps the car suddenly stopped moving.

Regardless, an impartial autopsy should be conducted to remove any doubt as to the cause of death. It is also plausible that what we see in the video is the result of a gun shot hitting Bhutto. But at this stage, this is idle speculation not hard evidence.

Ed, I am a big fan of this site and have a great deal of respect for your opinions but I am surprised that you have signed on to this media hysteria so quickly and absolutely. There has always been a strong case for an independent autopsy, this video does not add to that.