OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[XXXIV]

Obviously, I'm not in McCain's position either. My judgement means little in who becomes Pres or VP ultimately either. After one phone call 6months ago, McCain chose Palin to be his running mate. Who do you chose to do anything for you after one phone call?

1-900?

[Brando70]

- FDR's legacy is a lengthy depression, entitlement programs that aren't sustainable, allowing Japan and Germany to run rampant for years in the name of peace but ultimately failing to prevent world war, and a constitutional amendment barring presidents from serving as long as he did.

FDR's greatness is debatable, but he didn't cause the Depression, the entitlement programs he established have been sustainable when people don't do idiotic things like cut taxes AND raise spending, he actually pushed against the isolationist impulse of the American public to do more to stop Germany and Japan, and the amendment was enacted by a Republican Congress worried that another Democrat would shut them out of the White House for four elections.

[Jackdog]

The more I read about Palin, the more I wish she was the one running for president.

I really don't think she was chosen just to try and sway Clinton supporters. If that was the case, I'm sure he would've found a woman closer to the middle ground on issues like abortion in order to make it easy for the Clinton backers to jump the fence.

I agree. I would vote for her to be president in a second. If anyone that doubts her qualifications did some reserch they would understand why she was picked. Palin could very well be the first women president of this country. I have followed her since she rooted out the Republican crooks running Alaska. Then she stood up to (R)Sen Ted Stevens and Congress and told them to pound sand with the "Bridge to Nowhere" bullshit. She told the big oil boys to f*ck off when they tried to buy her off. She doesn't give a f*ck about party,she cares about what's right for her constituents. She has an 80% approval rating as the Governor of Alaska. She is a people first politician. That's a rare thing.

She is everything Hilary wants to be. She doesn't have any looney racist pastors or crooks in her past. She fights corruption,not accept money from it. She is my type of politician.

[Feanor]

She is everything Hilary wants to be.

True. She's a biological female, to start with.

[XXXIV]

She is everything Hilary wants to be.

True. She's a biological female, to start with.

Thats so cold...

[FatPitcher]

- FDR's legacy is a lengthy depression, entitlement programs that aren't sustainable, allowing Japan and Germany to run rampant for years in the name of peace but ultimately failing to prevent world war, and a constitutional amendment barring presidents from serving as long as he did.

FDR's greatness is debatable, but he didn't cause the Depression, the entitlement programs he established have been sustainable when people don't do idiotic things like cut taxes AND raise spending, he actually pushed against the isolationist impulse of the American public to do more to stop Germany and Japan, and the amendment was enacted by a Republican Congress worried that another Democrat would shut them out of the White House for four elections.

Amendments can't be enacted by a Republican Congress. It takes just a little more than that.

FDR didn't cause the Great Depression, but he kept it going for pretty much his entire time in office.

Roosevelt campaigned in 1936 on the pledge of keeping the U.S. out of the war, but later started the lend-lease program that ensured that the U.S. would eventually be drawn into it.

The entitlement programs are unsustainable because of demographic and tehcnological changes that cause the systems to pay out more than they take in. Payroll taxes, which are what pay for these systems, haven't been cut. And since it is a closed system where taxes and spending are (supposed to be) separate from other parts of the budget, changes to other parts of the budget (taxes, spending) have no direct effect on them.

[pk500]

Obviously, I'm not in McCain's position either. My judgement means little in who becomes Pres or VP ultimately either. After one phone call 6months ago, McCain chose Palin to be his running mate. Who do you chose to do anything for you after one phone call?

It worked for former N.Y. Governor Elliot Spitzer and his high-priced call girl.

Take care,
PK

[TheGamer]

Obviously, I'm not in McCain's position either. My judgement means little in who becomes Pres or VP ultimately either. After one phone call 6months ago, McCain chose Palin to be his running mate. Who do you chose to do anything for you after one phone call?

It worked for former N.Y. Governor Elliot Spitzer and his high-priced call girl.

Take care,
PK

True, let's hope McCain gets the same payoff at least for a little while. I'm sure his first thoughts when he met Palin, was "Threesome!!!"

[Brando70]

- FDR's legacy is a lengthy depression, entitlement programs that aren't sustainable, allowing Japan and Germany to run rampant for years in the name of peace but ultimately failing to prevent world war, and a constitutional amendment barring presidents from serving as long as he did.

FDR's greatness is debatable, but he didn't cause the Depression, the entitlement programs he established have been sustainable when people don't do idiotic things like cut taxes AND raise spending, he actually pushed against the isolationist impulse of the American public to do more to stop Germany and Japan, and the amendment was enacted by a Republican Congress worried that another Democrat would shut them out of the White House for four elections.

Amendments can't be enacted by a Republican Congress. It takes just a little more than that.

FDR didn't cause the Great Depression, but he kept it going for pretty much his entire time in office.

Roosevelt campaigned in 1936 on the pledge of keeping the U.S. out of the war, but later started the lend-lease program that ensured that the U.S. would eventually be drawn into it.

The entitlement programs are unsustainable because of demographic and tehcnological changes that cause the systems to pay out more than they take in. Payroll taxes, which are what pay for these systems, haven't been cut. And since it is a closed system where taxes and spending are (supposed to be) separate from other parts of the budget, changes to other parts of the budget (taxes, spending) have no direct effect on them.

The amendment was championed by the Republican Congress, and after WWII, the American people were rightly concerned about the executive branch assuming dictatorial powers. I think most also believed the two-term tradition should be the standard. I hardly see how that's a "fault" of FDRs.

I'm also trying to figure out which side you were on: that FDR was a warmonger, or that he didn't monger war enough? It's pretty clear from the historical record that he supported the Allied efforts against Germany, and that he tried to lend whatever aid he could. He may have run on a non-intervention ticket in 1936, but there were also rapid changes in the international situation after the election.

I'm also not sure how FDR "kept the Depression going." The New Deal didn't solve it, sure, but it did at least provide a bit of social aspirin to the country. The Depression was arguably beyond solving, taking something as big as a global war to jump-start the economy. FDR's programs did help curb unemployment and resulted in projects such as the TVA, which were extremely beneficial.

[RobVarak]

It's nice that this thread is moving so fast, but it's really hard to keep up. LOL Plus it dilutes my contribution by making my posts a smaller percentage of the whole.

I said this earlier, but I don't think that Palin will help sway likely Democratic voters who were for Hillary. I think she will, however, sway some independents (both men and women) who may have backed Hillary while also energizing the GOP base. That's a pretty good return.

I obviously think she's qualified because I was calling for her selection a while ago, but I don't think she was chosen solely because she's a woman any more than she was chosen solely because she's pro-life, an NRA member or an expert in energy production. Those are all part of the total package.

[SPTO]

It's nice that this thread is moving so fast, but it's really hard to keep up. LOL Plus it dilutes my contribution by making my posts a smaller percentage of the whole.

You think it's hard for you? It's nearly impossible for me!

Anyways on the FDR front I totally agree with Brando here. Sure the New Deal didn't solve the Great Depression but before FDR was in office the wheels of government was spinning out of control. You had a president that believed in letting big business sort things out and clearly that wasn't working. No one in the Washington establishment knew what to do. The make work programs that FDR instituted at least brought some stability and a sense of control back to the country. If the government had kept going with a hands off or business friendly policy then even more banks and financial institutions would've gone under.

As for FDR's '36 election, you have to remember it was a totally different climate then the '37-'39 time period. It was also generally known by the Washington elite that FDR WANTED to help Europe far earlier then he actually did. The Lend-Lease program was more or less a compromise because congress and the rest of the country was so isolationist that just the thought of war was anathema to them. Hell, there were warning signs about just how militant Germany and Japan were but the public and Washington elite turned their heads.

Just ask the many souls who perished in the Holocaust because countries like the USA, Britain, Canada etc etc wouldn't let them emigrate.

The term limits amendment was quasi political as the GOP didn't want to be shut out the way they were throughout the '30s but also in more practical terms it limits too much power being invested by the same people in the executive branch for too long.

[SPTO]

(Sorry for double post but I didn't want my last post to be too long winded)

Science is not the be all end all of everything but it does play an important role in the life and culture of nations. Let's face it, it's not a compliment to have a president who doesn't have a clue how to use a PC or how to use E-mail. It's a reflection of the person's unwillingness to adapt with the times and to embark upon change.

This is a problem I have with most hard line conservatives. They'll preach their values and bible based ideology which closes their minds to the possibility that science may bring cures to some of what ails people the most. Stem cell research isn't something that should be automatically thrown out the door just because embryos are needed. Research and development is the lifeblood of a nation. If you have creative people working in the sciences and technological fields who are given grants and full support from universities, hospitals and major companies alike then you'll see major advancement.

Now that's not to say that we should dictate our lives to the laws of science. There has to be some guidelines because even the most noble causes can lead to ghastly results but I completely reject the notion that religion and ideological biases should halt good deeds just because it's "wrong" to do these things.

So I say to you let technology and science go on almost unhindered in the name of progress and enlightenment of the nation. Remember Japan (especially in the '80s) is a highly technological based society and aside from a few cultural quirks they're no different then North Americans. I don't see them as heathens fighting against spiritual values.

[Brando70]

I obviously think she's qualified because I was calling for her selection a while ago, but I don't think she was chosen solely because she's a woman any more than she was chosen solely because she's pro-life, an NRA member or an expert in energy production. Those are all part of the total package.

She's a very smart choice and a fine person. Her willingness to take on corruption regardless of party is not only admirable, but a great selling point. I have some ideological differences with her (shocking, I know) but overall she seems like a good pick for him.

My only question is: doesn't this diffuse McCain's criticism of Obama's experience? I know Obama is running for president and Palin is only the VP, but given McCain's age, there is certainly a higher chance of incapacitation while he would be in office (I mean no disrespect to the Senator on that, either). More so than previous elections, you have to consider the possibility of the VP serving a little more carefully. In fact, you could make that case for both candidates, since this country has an unfortunate precedent of wackos going after African American leaders.

I also think it would be smart for the Democrats to simply acknowledge Palin's nomination as another milestone for women, then move on to ignoring her. Unless some skeleton gets dug up, she is a bad candidate for character assassination. They should stick to focusing on McCain and the key issues.

[wco81]

Palin's pretty hardcore, which is why the base seems to be the most pleased.

She was an acolyte of Pat Buchanan from '92 and she opposes abortion even in the case of rape and incest, a position held by few swing voters.

The McCain campaign positions her as a reformer for going after corruption.

But some have surmised she's going to be deployed to firm up the base while McCain will reach out to the swing voters.

[FatPitcher]

(Sorry for double post but I didn't want my last post to be too long winded)

Science is not the be all end all of everything but it does play an important role in the life and culture of nations. Let's face it, it's not a compliment to have a president who doesn't have a clue how to use a PC or how to use E-mail. It's a reflection of the person's unwillingness to adapt with the times and to embark upon change.

This is a problem I have with most hard line conservatives. They'll preach their values and bible based ideology which closes their minds to the possibility that science may bring cures to some of what ails people the most. Stem cell research isn't something that should be automatically thrown out the door just because embryos are needed. Research and development is the lifeblood of a nation. If you have creative people working in the sciences and technological fields who are given grants and full support from universities, hospitals and major companies alike then you'll see major advancement.

Now that's not to say that we should dictate our lives to the laws of science. There has to be some guidelines because even the most noble causes can lead to ghastly results but I completely reject the notion that religion and ideological biases should halt good deeds just because it's "wrong" to do these things.

So I say to you let technology and science go on almost unhindered in the name of progress and enlightenment of the nation. Remember Japan (especially in the '80s) is a highly technological based society and aside from a few cultural quirks they're no different then North Americans. I don't see them as heathens fighting against spiritual values.

I agree, but I think the notion that just because Bush has severely limited federal funding for stem cell research, all religious people are generally anti-science is bogus. There are sometimes areas where their beliefs conflict with scientific progress, but nothing's stopping interested parties (individuals, states, etc.) from funding their own research. If people on the left gave as much money to stem cell research as they did to politicians in an effort to force other people to pay for stem cell research, it would already be thriving.

Like I mentioned earlier, GM food is a science-based advance whose benefits are here and are tangible, yet people (on the left, as it happens) protest it, and a result, more people in Africa starve. I don't hear those people being demonized by the left as anti-science, even though their rationale for opposing is blatant mistrust of science, not morality as in the stem cell issue. You have a similar issue with DDT - it has its drawbacks, but none even near as severe as millions dying of malaria.

[FatPitcher]

FDR's greatness is debatable, but he didn't cause the Depression, the entitlement programs he established have been sustainable when people don't do idiotic things like cut taxes AND raise spending, he actually pushed against the isolationist impulse of the American public to do more to stop Germany and Japan, and the amendment was enacted by a Republican Congress worried that another Democrat would shut them out of the White House for four elections.

Amendments can't be enacted by a Republican Congress. It takes just a little more than that.

FDR didn't cause the Great Depression, but he kept it going for pretty much his entire time in office.

Roosevelt campaigned in 1936 on the pledge of keeping the U.S. out of the war, but later started the lend-lease program that ensured that the U.S. would eventually be drawn into it.

The entitlement programs are unsustainable because of demographic and tehcnological changes that cause the systems to pay out more than they take in. Payroll taxes, which are what pay for these systems, haven't been cut. And since it is a closed system where taxes and spending are (supposed to be) separate from other parts of the budget, changes to other parts of the budget (taxes, spending) have no direct effect on them.

The amendment was championed by the Republican Congress, and after WWII, the American people were rightly concerned about the executive branch assuming dictatorial powers. I think most also believed the two-term tradition should be the standard. I hardly see how that's a "fault" of FDRs.

I'm also trying to figure out which side you were on: that FDR was a warmonger, or that he didn't monger war enough? It's pretty clear from the historical record that he supported the Allied efforts against Germany, and that he tried to lend whatever aid he could. He may have run on a non-intervention ticket in 1936, but there were also rapid changes in the international situation after the election.

I'm also not sure how FDR "kept the Depression going." The New Deal didn't solve it, sure, but it did at least provide a bit of social aspirin to the country. The Depression was arguably beyond solving, taking something as big as a global war to jump-start the economy. FDR's programs did help curb unemployment and resulted in projects such as the TVA, which were extremely beneficial.

FDR's problem with regards to WWII is that he both made war inevitable and acted too late to nip it in the bud--several potential allies were already subdued by late 1941. He also made a poor decision to make concessions to Stalin at Yalta.

FDR kept the depression going by taking away the economic recovery's oxygen with price and wage controls, unnecessary government spending, cozy relations with crime-infested labor organizations, destruction of the gold standard (and confiscation of gold from normal people), formation of and propaganda for the cartel-creating National Recovery Administration (which was later wiped away by the Supreme Court) and a long list of power grabs that make the Patriot Act look like small potatoes.

If FDR had been so great for the country, I doubt the mountain of support necessary to pass an amendment ensuring that there was never another FDR would have materialized so quickly.

[RobVarak]

My only question is: doesn't this diffuse McCain's criticism of Obama's experience? I know Obama is running for president and Palin is only the VP, but given McCain's age, there is certainly a higher chance of incapacitation while he would be in office (I mean no disrespect to the Senator on that, either). More so than previous elections, you have to consider the possibility of the VP serving a little more carefully. In fact, you could make that case for both candidates, since this country has an unfortunate precedent of wackos going after African American leaders.

I think it marks the end of McCain or his campaign going after Obama's experience, but I don't think it takes experience off the table the way the Obama campaign is suggesting. McCain can leave it to his minions, independent supporters and those few in the media who dare blaspheme.

OTOH, the Dems can't go after her experience either...at least not without seeming like head in the sand morons, or insincere. Her experience is as good or better than BO's.

I think McCain has bigger fish to fry than Obama's experience at this point anyway. His background and judgment strike me as the targets to go after, with his Chicago ties in general and Ayers and Emil Jones in particular rich for mining by the GOP. And you haven't heard the last of Jeremiah Wright, either.

I think swing voters have essentially decided that despite his lack of experience BO is a legitimate candidate. Hell he's been on TV constantly for 6 months. Now it's time for the GOP to show those people where the reality departs from the magical pixie dust of the "change" meme. Rip off that mask and show them that they're looking at a Daley Machine-made Walter Mondale in reformer's clothes.

[Inuyasha]

It's ludicrous how MCcain is now trying to be seen as a reformer. Now it's time to show the people what he really is, rip that mask off and show the people they're looking at a Bush Rumsfeld WarMongering Dick Cheney in wannabe reformers clothes. Heh, it's actually funny, 30 years in washington and now he's suddenly a reformer.

[FatPitcher]

It's ludicrous how MCcain is now trying to be seen as a reformer. Now it's time to show the people what he really is, rip that mask off and show the people they're looking at a Bush Rumsfeld WarMongering Dick Cheney in wannabe reformers clothes. Heh, it's actually funny, 30 years in washington and now he's suddenly a reformer.

You've been drinking too much DNC Kool-Aid. It wasn't so long ago that Dems were treating him like one of their own because of his clashes with Bush and co-sponsoring of McCain-Feingold. He's been one of the few Senators who's fought against wasteful spending. And he's also spearheaded immigration reform in the Senate.

[Inuyasha]

It's ludicrous how MCcain is now trying to be seen as a reformer. Now it's time to show the people what he really is, rip that mask off and show the people they're looking at a Bush Rumsfeld WarMongering Dick Cheney in wannabe reformers clothes. Heh, it's actually funny, 30 years in washington and now he's suddenly a reformer.

You've been drinking too much DNC Kool-Aid. It wasn't so long ago that Dems were treating him like one of their own because of his clashes with Bush and co-sponsoring of McCain-Feingold. He's been one of the few Senators who's fought against wasteful spending. And he's also spearheaded immigration reform in the Senate.

I was mocking the RNC-KoolAid drinker before me.

[TheHiddenTrack]

And he's also spearheaded immigration reform in the Senate.

And he now says he wouldn't vote for his own creation. McCain is trying to have it both ways. He says he's the maverick when he's in front of independents but when he's in front of his base or evangelicals he acts like he had the brain of 2000 McCain removed. He got close to Bush the last two years preparing for a presidential run and now that he's getting pounded on it he wants certain people to only remember his old maverick self.

[TheHiddenTrack]

Palin's thoughts on Iraq:

In an interview with Alaska Business Monthly shortly after she took office in 2007, Palin was asked about the upcoming surge. She said she hadn't thought about it. "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq," she said. 'I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe."

Seven months into the surge, she still either had not formed any opinion on the surge or the war or just wasn't sharing. "I'm not here to judge the idea of withdrawing, or the timeline," she said in a teleconference interview with reporters during a July 2007 visit with Alaska National Guard troops stationed in Kuwait. "I'm not going to judge even the surge. I'm here to find out what Alaskans need of me as their governor."
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

O'Rly?

[RobVarak]

It's ludicrous how MCcain is now trying to be seen as a reformer. Now it's time to show the people what he really is, rip that mask off and show the people they're looking at a Bush Rumsfeld WarMongering Dick Cheney in wannabe reformers clothes. Heh, it's actually funny, 30 years in washington and now he's suddenly a reformer.

You've been drinking too much DNC Kool-Aid. It wasn't so long ago that Dems were treating him like one of their own because of his clashes with Bush and co-sponsoring of McCain-Feingold. He's been one of the few Senators who's fought against wasteful spending. And he's also spearheaded immigration reform in the Senate.

I was mocking the RNC-KoolAid drinker before me.

I'm once again humbled by your rapier wit.

Your logic? Not so much.

First of all the media, Democrats and True Believers have already been characterizing McCain as Bush clone.

Using Rumsfeld's name is laughable, as McCain was one of his harshest critics.

And McCain at least has a record of dissent from his party and reform that he can point to. He's arguably glossed over or broken from that record during this campaign, but he is a man who was anathema to the Right. Hell, there were Democrats that wanted him to be Kerry's running mate.

Obama, on the other hand has done nothing which would warrant the reformer tag. He rose through the ranks of the most corrupt political culture in the US sponsored by a stunning array of crooked patrons. He's associated with a cast of characters like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright whose views could only charitably be called radical.

His policies consist of the same recycled New Deal/Great society blather that have been rejected when proposed by Mondale, Dukakis etc. He just wraps it in New and Improved packaging, borrowing some Reaganesque rhetoric here and there and delivering it with a skill and ease.

That is not a record of reform that anyone with a lick of common sense can believe in.

I can understand people supporting him because they are liberal or welcome liberal policies, that's consistent with what he's promising. But the idea that he represents some new way of doing political business is just not supported by the facts. And I don't need the RNC to explain that to me.

[RobVarak]

Like many republicans she is anti-science and thinks schools should "teach the controversy." (This is actually something McCain has said as well) So we are about to elect two scientifically illiterate candidates in the twenty-first century.

Apparently, Palin is not the knuckle-dragger that some are making her out to be. Here's a bit more on her take on creationism.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article ... reationism

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.

Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

“I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism,” Palin said.

[Jackdog]

She was an acolyte of Pat Buchanan from '92 and she opposes abortion even in the case of rape and incest, a position held by few swing voters.

Please post a link backing this rape and incest claim up.