OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[TheGamer]

this is scary :

http://cbs4denver.com/investigates/assi ... 02827.html

very

[RobVarak]

I do love that the Republican presidential campaign is using Hillary Clinton as a supportive reference for McCain. The political snake has swallowed its tail.

Every single politician would eat his or her young in order to gain power. Nature of the beast (politicious egoist). I was thinking of that watching Biden last night. You know that no matter what happens deep inside he (like every other US Senator) looks at Obama and thinks, "That should be me." But they'll swallow the envy for a long time if it brings them even a single mole of additional access, prestige or power.

That said, it is natural that some Hillary voters would swing toward McCain rather than Obama, and not just because of campaign fallout. Certainly some of her support backed her because of her experience and relative moderation. They may very well be drawn to those same qualities in McCain rather than Obama, who shares neither.

[SPTO]

McCain has moderation? The same McCain who has hinted at an American prescence in Iraq for the next few decades?

Back to the celebrity thing, I've never been a fan of celebrities trying to sway voters. It reeks of "we know better then you" elitism and comes off very poorly. There are only two celebrities that I have the utmost respect for when it comes to political matters even if I don't agree with their politics is Clint Eastwood (who served some time as a mayor in California) and Robert Redford who seems to have a conscience but doesn't push his message down people's throats like oh say, Oprah.

[Brando70]

That said, it is natural that some Hillary voters would swing toward McCain rather than Obama, and not just because of campaign fallout. Certainly some of her support backed her because of her experience and relative moderation. They may very well be drawn to those same qualities in McCain rather than Obama, who shares neither.

I don't understand how someone who was a Clinton supporter could go to McCain. The Obama and Clinton platforms are very, very similar, differing mostly on details. They are both very different from McCain's, which more or less is easy-drinking Bush Lite. I understand if they don't want to vote Obama, and maybe wanted to write in Clinton or someone else. But if they were Clinton supporters, McCain contradicts most of the ideology and policies they supported in Clinton.

[Inuyasha]

Hillary's experience is a joke. What experience does she have, being first lady? Why doesn't Laura Bush run for President then. What has she also done as senator in relation to foreign policy.

If McCain really wants to sell the whole inexperience thing, he should just put a commercial with Bush in there and what his lack of experience going into the WH got us. Now that would work, regardless of which side you're on.

[wco81]

I don't understand how someone who was a Clinton supporter could go to McCain. The Obama and Clinton platforms are very, very similar, differing mostly on details. They are both very different from McCain's, which more or less is easy-drinking Bush Lite. I understand if they don't want to vote Obama, and maybe wanted to write in Clinton or someone else. But if they were Clinton supporters, McCain contradicts most of the ideology and policies they supported in Clinton.

Some of them clearly say they want to punish the DNC for forcing an inexperienced, lacking-substance Obama down their throats.

They may be pro-choice and anti-war but showing up the DNC for ignoring 18 million voters is apparently a higher priority.

One of McCain's ad features a Wisconsin woman who voted for Clinton but is now backing McCain. But she was surprised to learn McCain is pro-life and talked about replacing justices in the Supreme Court with those who'd vote like the conservative justices (oh and that "life begins at conception" quote by McCain recently too).

Strange, some in McCain's camp say they need the discontented Clinton voters to win but Obama's camp say they don't need them. One of them has to be wrong.

[Brando70]

I don't think there are that many Clinton voters who are going to go to McCain, for the reasons I listed. Their influence has been exaggerated by the blogosphere and media. Most will probably line up (grudgingly) to vote for Obama.

[XXXIV]

I don't think there are that many Clinton voters who are going to go to McCain, for the reasons I listed. Their influence has been exaggerated by the blogosphere and media. Most will probably line up (grudgingly) to vote for Obama.

Some though will just stay home...and...


Dont underestimate this segment of the population either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODaxZSz3 ... re=related

Racism is far from dead.

[RobVarak]

SPTO:

McCain is, by almost any objective measuring of the American political spectrum, a moderate.

I wouldn't judge him or any candidate on one statement. Even if you did, was Truman a radical for essentially committing us to a 50+ year committment in Korea or Germany?


Brando: If you think McCain and Bush are that interchangeable you're not paying nearly enough attention to my side of the aisle. The far right's only real beef with W was with his spending policy. His dalliance with immigration reform rankled, but it happened at such a late date that it was essentiallys stillborn. McCain is far more moderate, and thus far more loathed on the right on virtually every issue: campaign finance reform, immigration, the environment, tax policy, and the whole range of social issues.

By most indices, McCain and Hillary are far, far more centrist than Obama.

As a Liberal, I'm surprised you found her so appealing. She was a nouveau-DLC candidate and governor, which I should think would be as anathema to you as McCain is to most real Conservatives. Now she emphasized the more liberal aspects of her background in an effort to win the primaries and because Obama pushed her for party votes from the left. But she was much closer to Clinton, whom several economics professors associates of mine refer to as the Shadow Republican.

From my personal perspective I could easily see myself switching from McCain to Hillary (if he'd lost and she'd won the primary fights) rather than backing Huckabee or someone as Conservative socially as Obama is liberal. I was fully prepared to cross over for Bill at any time if Pat Buchanan was the nominee. And please don't suggest that Barack is not as radically leftist as Buchanan was to the right. The objective fact is that there is nobody more liberal in the entire Senate (and most of the House for that matter).

All that doesn't even account for the fact that many voters won't look at or don't care about the candidates stated positions or relative place on the political spectrum. They vote based on experience or the candidate's resume. And here again there is far more similarity between Hillary and McCain than Hillary and Obama.

Sometimes it seems that the only thing that unites the Left at this point in history is anti-Republicanism. But that doesn't mean that the GOP is really anywhere close to as narrow and conservative in composition as the Left thinks it is.

Edit: I do agree that ultimately most of the Clinton voters will go for Obama. But not all of them will, which is the first significant split one of the major parties since Perot was riding his nutmobile over the political landscape.

Inyuasha,

Hillary also has substantially more Senate and professional experience than Obama does...to the extent that he can be considered to have any Senate experience at all.

I sometimes think that the best thing the GOP could do is point out what a Mickey Mouse operation the Illinois legislature is.

[SPTO]

SPTO:

McCain is, by almost any objective measuring of the American political spectrum, a moderate.

I wouldn't judge him or any candidate on one statement. Even if you did, was Truman a radical for essentially committing us to a 50+ year committment in Korea or Germany?

That's true if we were talking about the McCain of pre-2000. Ever since 2000 McCain has allied himself with the Bush administration policies which is by no means moderate. I will grant you that McCain has been moving back to his previous positions in most areas since the '08 election cycle and especially after securing the GOP nomination. Some have said that this exposes McCain as a typical politician but I don't see it that way. I see it more like an old veteran ballplayer knowing his time is nearly up and he's signing with a flavor of the month team but soon realizes that said team was all hype and decides to prolong his career one more year to go back to the team that made him what he is.

That being said McCain is now too old and out of touch to be truly effective. There's a huge difference between Truman's commitment to Korea/Germany as those nations were either allies or soundly defeated that there would be no chance of uprisings against the US forces. Having troops in Iraq for 50+ years would be akin to a hostile occupation force whereas the US was more or less welcomed/tolerated in Korea/Germany.

[wco81]

Obama and Clinton's positions on fiscal policy, health care, choice and other areas are much closer than McCains positions.

McCain has voted with Bush like 90% of the time and has come around to Bush's positions on tax cuts.

At Saddleback, he made his position on the abortion issue clear and talked about the kind of justices he'd nominate and which justices he found unfit for the Court (all 4 liberal justices, 3 of whose nominations he voted for).

The "maverick" of the 2000 primaries has left the building.

[Brando70]

McCain the moderate maverick died a long time ago. He talks a big game about being his own man, but he follows many of the same policies of the Bush Administration. His voting record has been moderate (although there are a number of other Republicans more moderate than he is). But his change in course over the last six months has been in step with the standard Republican platform:

--He will keep Bush's tax cuts and reduce capital gains taxes, classic "trickle down" economics which always feels like a golden shower for those in lower income brackets

--Staying in Iraq until the fluffy goal of Iraqi unity arrives like the unicorn at the end of "Legend". That's a real kicker considering Iraq has only been unified by extreme force from empires, monarchies, or fascist states. (And Korea and Iraq are completely different conflicts with totally different reasons for having standing armies. Keep that straw man away from open flames.)

--Culture wars. McCain is pretty in-step with Bush on abortion and gay rights. He would likely attack the first through an anti-abortion nominee to the court and the second by making it a "state's rights" issue, which is the Pontious Pilate way out of a tough issue.

--McCain's Social Security policy is very similar to Bush's privatization, although McCain has tried to deny this.

--Immigration. McCain's position has snuck back and forth across the logic border many times. It's a bad sign when you go out of your way to distance yourself from an immigration reform bill you sponsored, all because you think it will hurt your chances at being elected.

--Health care. The usual bullshit about cutting costs without really offering any way to do it.

--Energy policy. Plenty of oil drilling with the attendant lip service to alternative energy, which of course will require money to research (wait for it)

--Spending. He is stepping on the same land mine that the Bush administration did. He believes that the budget can be balanced by 2013 through spending cuts, even while cutting taxes. The only way this could possibly happen would be if the economy made some incredible rebound immediately. Considering that the very significant Bush tax cuts didn't prevent the most severe economic slowdown since the 1980s, this seems rather dubious.

Most of McCain's moderation comes from not being a culture warrior and from being fairly open on immigration reform. Now that he's pushing border control over guest worker passes, one of his big moderate ideals is taking a back seat to political expediency. Interestingly, his 2007 voting record could not be evaluated by the National Journal because he missed too many votes.

As for Clinton, she is the same character: not nearly as moderate as she paints herself. Her domestic policies in particular are traditional liberal ones.

Obama does have the most liberal record in the Senate, but the Buchanan comparison is flat out wrong. Obama is not a radical leftist. Radical leftists don't get elected to the Senate, because this country is too conservative. His economic policies are no more radical than FDRs were. It only appears that way because, since Reagan, both Republicans and Democrats have continuously kept taxes low compared to historic US trends. Obama's would simply go back to Clinton's on income and Reagan's on capital gains.

There, that's how I have not been paying attention.

[wco81]

--McCain's Social Security policy is very similar to Bush's privatization, although McCain has tried to deny this.

--Immigration. McCain's position has snuck back and forth across the logic border many times. It's a bad sign when you go out of your way to distance yourself from an immigration reform bill you sponsored, all because you think it will hurt your chances at being elected.

--Health care. The usual bullshit about cutting costs without really offering any way to do it.

--Energy policy. Plenty of oil drilling with the attendant lip service to alternative energy, which of course will require money to research (wait for it)

On SS he went on some unprompted rant about how the current system is horrible and how private accounts would be better. Surprising given that Bush's attempt didn't get anywhere politically.

On health care, he's talked about tax credits and deductions, not too different from health care savings accounts which the Republicans have floated before.

With these tax subsidies (while removing tax benefits to employers who fund health insurance for their employees), individuals are suppose to fend for themselves and somehow do better than group insurance rates which large employers are able to secure.

Never mind that the health insurance industry has consolidated greatly and continues to consolidate so it's not clear where this price competition is suppose to materialize, when under the current system, prices have been going up, even when there were more insurers.


On energy policy, he's given lip service to renewable energy but doesn't think govt. should pick winners by giving subsidies to certain technologies.

Meanwhile, he's advocating subsidies for nuclear and a big expansion in nuclear plants (which may not be economically viable without subsidies/tax breaks).

[RobVarak]

Obama does have the most liberal record in the Senate, but the Buchanan comparison is flat out wrong. Obama is not a radical leftist. Radical leftists don't get elected to the Senate, because this country is too conservative. His economic policies are no more radical than FDRs were.

Well if FDR wasn't a radical leftist then I'd hope to God never to run across a "real" one.

Obviously, I'm not suggesting that Obama is a communist, but rather given the landscape of the Democratic party in the last 20 years he's far to the left of its center. (Incidentally, FDR clearly would be as well...same for LBJ.)

Your breakdown of the relative Bush-McCain positions has perversely reinforced my point, though. Some of those same voters who support Hillary and reject Obama due to his inexperience or his voting record would have likely supported W rather than Barry.

Brando, I think we're talking past each other a bit on this topic, but let me try to re-frame my point. I'm not suggesting that Hillary-backers *should* back McCain. I'm just saying that there are a lot of voters out there who actually *will* back McCain because of the reasons that I cited. You may intellectually disagree with that choice, but I think there is a valid polticial basis for their doing so. I don't think it is, as some have suggested, all GOP dirty tricks to try to mess up the convention and sow disunity.

At the risk of creating some self-referential rip in the time-space continuum, I quote myself (a thoroughly Bidenesque exercise if ever there was one )

That said, it is natural that some Hillary voters would swing toward McCain rather than Obama, and not just because of campaign fallout. Certainly some of her support backed her because of her experience and relative moderation. They may very well be drawn to those same qualities in McCain rather than Obama, who shares neither.

All that doesn't even account for the fact that many voters won't look at or don't care about the candidates stated positions or relative place on the political spectrum. They vote based on experience or the candidate's resume. And here again there is far more similarity between Hillary and McCain than Hillary and Obama

.

[Inuyasha]

I think for the first time in a long time, both choices are likable. I knew when Clinton ran he was a complete scumbag and when Bush and Gore ran, they were a bunch of dimwits. At least Obama and McCain seem to possess the knowledge to be President and also some common sense.

[FatPitcher]

I think for the first time in a long time, both choices are likable. I knew when Clinton ran he was a complete scumbag and when Bush and Gore ran, they were a bunch of dimwits. At least Obama and McCain seem to possess the knowledge to be President and also some common sense.

Odd. I dislike them both.

Obama has no record of accomplishment (and indeed, a record of failure in his public housing and education reform efforts in Chicago) and is an ivory-tower socialist operating in stealth mode for electability's sake. Regardless of his views, he doesn't have the resume to be senator, much less president.

McCain has no clue on the economy (gas tax holiday) and parrots the Republican line (tax cuts, drill), not because he believes in it or understands it, but because that's what his advisers tell him to say. He's on the left on issues like immigration and environmentalism. Plus, he's somewhat likely to quit after a single term, meaning that he doesn't have to worry about pissing off his supporters during his first term. He's an interventionist, like all presidents since WW2. His one redeeming quality is that he's a budget hawk.

[pk500]

His one redeeming quality is that he's a budget hawk.

Maybe in preaching, but I can't see how he'll be a budget hawk in practice when he wants to have an extended U.S. presence in Iraq and cut taxes simultaneously.

I'm with you, Fatty: I don't care for either guy. I find them about as genuine as Tupperware being passed off as fine china. Both are as phony as any garden-variety presidential candidate who has been trotted out for the last 20 years.

Take care,
PK

[Inuyasha]

Well that's what we get right, the way the system is. We get these pre packaged politicians that are all about themselves. When was the last time we really had a candidate that actually cared about the Constitution that really had a chance of winning. When a guy like that does come along, like Ron Paul, the establishment is so fearful of him/her that they will shoot them down or make them look like some kind of nutjob.

[FatPitcher]

When a guy like that does come along, like Ron Paul, the establishment is so fearful of him/her that they will shoot them down or make them look like some kind of nutjob.

To be fair, Paul--and his supporters--made that last part too easy.

[Feanor]

On a side note I was more moved when Nelson Mandela became President of South Africa in 1999. I don't agree with Mandela's political views at all, but what a comeback for a country that once sent him to serve time on the horrid Robben Island. Who would have thought that country would elect it's first black President before the US?

I would. Black people are a small minority here, a large majority there.

[RobVarak]

Well that's what we get right, the way the system is. We get these pre packaged politicians that are all about themselves.

Politiicans are politicians the world over and throughout history. They transcend system. It's why we remember the rare exceptional one.

[Brando70]

Well if FDR wasn't a radical leftist then I'd hope to God never to run across a "real" one.

Obviously, I'm not suggesting that Obama is a communist, but rather given the landscape of the Democratic party in the last 20 years he's far to the left of its center. (Incidentally, FDR clearly would be as well...same for LBJ.)

I agree with you there. Where we diverge is whether Obama's tilt is a good thing

Your breakdown of the relative Bush-McCain positions has perversely reinforced my point, though. Some of those same voters who support Hillary and reject Obama due to his inexperience or his voting record would have likely supported W rather than Barry.

I am nothing if not perverse.

I don't think it is, as some have suggested, all GOP dirty tricks to try to mess up the convention and sow disunity.

That I agree with 100%. The disunity completely originated within the Obama and Clinton camps. The GOP is just exploiting a schism that already exists, which I don't blame them for doing. I just have to laugh at the irony of a GOP candidate using a Clinton soundbite in a positive, pro-Republican fashion. It gives me hope for Jews and Palestinians.

[Smurfy]

On a side note I was more moved when Nelson Mandela became President of South Africa in 1999. I don't agree with Mandela's political views at all, but what a comeback for a country that once sent him to serve time on the horrid Robben Island. Who would have thought that country would elect it's first black President before the US?

I would. Black people are a small minority here, a large majority there.

ZING

But please leave Mandela out of this thread. He's far too great an individual to be included in a discussion on American Presidents.

Addendum: Mandela spent decades in prison for no good reason. Many American presidents spent no time in prison but should have.

[Jackdog]

ZING

But please leave Mandela out of this thread. He's far too great an individual to be included in a discussion on American Presidents.

Addendum: Mandela spent decades in prison for no good reason. Many American presidents spent no time in prison but should have.

Apartheid isn't practiced here. Mandela isn't off limits. But if you really read my post it was about the country of S Africa and it's progression.

[SPTO]

As to the likability of the candidates, i've always liked McCain at least when he's lucid and not suffering from mental lapses. The guy can be quite charming and has a wealth of experience but damn do I miss the ol' Maverick McCain.

Obama is VERY likable to me. He just appeals to me for some reason or another. He has a preacence about him that you don't see with most other politicians.

Oh and Clinton shut your mouth woman! I tell you she's got the worst public speaking skills for someone in her position. She sounds so monotone and robotic.

Ok well done scattershooting