OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 3

[JackB1]

You know, "we'll cut taxes, the other guy will tax and spend." Those mantras are not any different than what Bush campaigned on.

But the scary thing is that is exactly what wins elections. Most people won't challenge or research these statements and will accept them as the truth. The Republican's know how to win elections and the fact that McCain has a Rove protege, Steve Schmidt, as his campaign advisor, should have the Dem's very worried. It was Schmidt who thought of the anti-Obama ads with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. If there is one thing the Rep's know how to do, it's win elections. If Obama isn't prepared to fight fire with fire, he will lose.

[webdanzer]

Most political analysts are amazed at the current poll numbers given the dissatisfaction with the current administration.

Then they underestimate the power of the Conservative Party. Conservitive Americans will go with conservitive leaders.

Yes. Imagine chocolate ice cream is your favorite. When you get a bad batch, you don't suddenly prefer vanilla. You look for a better brand of chocolate.

Or you go with strawberry and vote Libertarian.

Mmmm. I'm voting Neopolitan! That even SOUNDS like a party.

Webdanzer on the Neopolitan ticket. Ice cream for all!

[Jackdog]

Mmmm. I'm voting Neopolitan! That even SOUNDS like a party.

Webdanzer on the Neopolitan ticket. Ice cream for all!

Sounds good. I am in!!!

[RobVarak]

Respond to the point at hand. Rob quoted a bunch of posts where McCain's subject was the economy, but all his comments are extremely vague with respect to what he will actually do and more specifically, what he will do to distinguish himself from Bush?

Briefly breaking with the Golden DSP Rule:

Those weren't posts. Those were excerpts from his acceptance speech, which you and others characterized as "barely" talking about the economy.

With all due respect...

The laundry list of entitlements and programs in Obama's acceptance was hardly more specific. As WCO said, such addresses are not typically where such matters are discussed.

I'm not even talking about the candidates overall policies here, but rather putting a torch to the lie that McCain didn't say anything about the economy in his acceptance.

[GameSeven]

I'm just curious, Jack, do you ever proofread your posts for how they might sound? It continues to astound me that for all of the "open-mindedness" of the American Left, they will often be the first to tell you your thinking is wrong if you don't see things through their narrow specs...

Respond to the point at hand. Rob quoted a bunch of posts where McCain's subject was the economy, but all his comments are extremely vague with respect to what he will actually do and more specifically, what he will do to distinguish himself from Bush?

As others have already discussed, a convention speech is hardly the place to expect specifics and Rob has already explained the context of his quoting the excerpts.

As to the point at hand, answering your question was not *my* point. While soliciting opinions and encouraging dialogue if perfectly reasonable, the tone of some of a couple of your recent posts has seemed condesending, going so far as to imply that disagreement with you could only be done out of "blind party loyalty". Also, the notion that "people hear what they want to hear" is somewhat accusatory (if also stating the obvious) if you are not including yourself in "people". Of course, if by people, you were being inclusive, then my mistake and we can carry on.

[JackB1]

I'm not even talking about the candidates overall policies here, but rather putting a torch to the lie that McCain didn't say anything about the economy in his acceptance.

Thank you for proving my point. He said nothing (of any substance) about the economy. We will have to wait for the debates to get into details.

Lets move on...

[Feanor]

Funny how people knock Obama for not being specific. I found him WAY more specific about what and how he will meet his goals than McCain was.
Proves how people just hear what they want to hear.

I'm just curious, Jack, do you ever proofread your posts for how they might sound? It continues to astound me that for all of the "open-mindedness" of the American Left, they will often be the first to tell you your thinking is wrong if you don't see things through their narrow specs...

I love the phrase "American Left" - it's an oxymoron. From Europe, it looks like "American Centre-ish with a slight lean to the right" vs "American Hard-Right with added Evangelicalism, maybe".

So true. American Republicans who go on about the "hard left" Democrats and their "socialist" policies should have a look at the policies of real left-wing political parties in other countries.

[Slumberland]

For the benefit of he-who-shall-not-be-named:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/jobsforamerica/

[matthewk]

Interesting poll results so far. Last election I swear we were overwhelmingly republican here and now it's close to 50/50.

Last time you probably only voted once

[matthewk]

I would like to direct a question towards those definitely voting Rep, because I just want to understand. Personally, I can't imagine I would vote Dem. again if the Dem's were in charge the past 8 years and the the economy was as bad as it is, gas prices were as bad as they are, home values are lower than ever, we are stuck in a war with no way out, etc. etc. Most people (over 75%) aren't happy with the direction we are headed and most agree the Bush Presidency has been a utter disappointment.

I'm in the undecided category, but I will give my input anyways.

News flash: Bush is not running in this election. McCain is NOT Bush.

Yeah, yeah, 90%...blah, blah, blah. They are diffferent people.

It may also have something to do with what the alternative is.

[wco81]

Nobody ever said they were the same people.

Just that they're likely to promote and carry out the same policies.

Moreover, McCain is clearly not the same guy who ran in 2000.

[RobVarak]

Nobody ever said they were the same people.

Just that they're likely to promote and carry out the same policies.

Moreover, McCain is clearly not the same guy who ran in 2000.

So nobody's saying that McCain is Bush, but McCain's definitely not McCain?

[RobVarak]

The death of the myth of Feminism continues apace:

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/09 ... for-women/

[wco81]

McCain the Maverick 2000 Edition is long dead.

[Teal]

McCain the Maverick 2000 Edition is long dead.

No more dead than the horse you keep beating...

[XXXIV]

All republicans are the same...All democrats are different?


Myopic a little we are?

[matthewk]

Nobody ever said they were the same people.

Just that they're likely to promote and carry out the same policies.

Moreover, McCain is clearly not the same guy who ran in 2000.

So nobody's saying that McCain is Bush, but McCain's definitely not McCain?

I thought it was: McCain is no longer McCain, but McSame, which is really Bush-lite or Bush warmed over, none of whcih are palatable. However, Bush-lite warmed over would be downright nasty

[fsquid]

I think you need to focus more on making poor people richer than on making rich people poorer.

I agree with your statement, but What does McCain plan to do that will make poor people richer? He barely mentioned the economy in his speech at the convention. I believe whichever candidate convinces the American public that they will benefit the economy the most, will win the election.

I'm not convinced that John McCain is going to help poor people get richer. If I were, I'd be a McCain supporter. I am convinced that Barack Obama, in trying to make rich people get poorer, is seeking to put into place economic strategies that will ultimately make everyone poorer. Even if McCain does nothing, it will be better than that.

The only way to help anyone get richer is economic growth. If you're not growing, then all you have is class warfare over who gets what share of a shrinking pie. In that scenario, the only way for anyone to get more is to take it from someone else. That will only work for a while, and that while is a lot shorter when you are taking money away from successful people who have options rather than from unsuccessful people who don't.

What I'd like to see Obama or McCain (or anyone, I don't care who, I just want to see it done) really come forward with a pro-growth economic strategy. Elements of that strategy, to my mind, would include:

1. A taxation scheme that is competitive with Europe and other developed countries.
2. A lot of the Ross Perot talking points (excluding the anti-NAFTA ones) about how to get the economy going, particularly small businesses, which 16 years later have still never been addressed. Perot understood that you can't be pro-jobs without being pro-business.
3. An energy strategy that makes sense. Paris Hilton has a better energy plan than either major party. I'm not kidding, she really does. How bad is that?
4. A solution to health care. I'm favorably inclined toward the French model, which Brasil may actually be executing currently better than the French are. Brasil has better answers on energy and health care than we do. Is that worse than Paris Hilton having a better energy plan? Should we ask Paris what to do about health care too?
5. Recognition that we are in a battle for worldwide economic supremacy. Winning the economic battles will in the future be more important than winning the military battles. Understand why we are losing the battles we lose (which is most of them), and make corrections to turn those losses into wins.
6. A solution on social security before we become so overburdened with paying benefits that we can't be competitive econmically.
7. Recognition that we can't spend more to defend Germany and Japan than Germany and Japan do, without inevitably becoming less economically competitive with Germany and Japan.

Focus more on growing the pie, and less on how the pie gets divided. As JFK said, "A rising tide lifts all boats."

[wco81]

McCain the Maverick 2000 Edition is long dead.

No more dead than the horse you keep beating...

The 2000 Edition was against tax cuts, for immigration reform.

He was also enraged at the smear campaign involving his adopted Indonesian daughter.

Now, he's flip-flopped on those and other issues and has eaten s*** and kissed up to the Bush machine.

If he was still the 2000-2003 McCain, you wouldn't be able to stand him.

[Brando70]

The death of the myth of Feminism continues apace:

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/09 ... for-women/

What exactly is the myth of feminism? Sarah Palin wouldn't be where she is without feminism. She supports a party that believes a pharmacist can refuse to fill a legal birth control prescription if it conflicts with his or her religious views. She is running with a man who, when asked whether birth control should be covered under health plans, couldn't answer the question and didn't remember what he voted on:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/0 ... 11798.html

Controlling one's genitals is a big part of being a grown up. That's why a lot of women, even those that may not agree with things that rhyme with smashsmortion, get a little touchy when people are for restricting their vaj jay jays.

[wco81]

What I'd like to see Obama or McCain (or anyone, I don't care who, I just want to see it done) really come forward with a pro-growth economic strategy. Elements of that strategy, to my mind, would include:

1. A taxation scheme that is competitive with Europe and other developed countries.
2. A lot of the Ross Perot talking points (excluding the anti-NAFTA ones) about how to get the economy going, particularly small businesses, which 16 years later have still never been addressed. Perot understood that you can't be pro-jobs without being pro-business.
3. An energy strategy that makes sense. Paris Hilton has a better energy plan than either major party. I'm not kidding, she really does. How bad is that?
4. A solution to health care. I'm favorably inclined toward the French model, which Brasil may actually be executing currently better than the French are. Brasil has better answers on energy and health care than we do. Is that worse than Paris Hilton having a better energy plan? Should we ask Paris what to do about health care too?
5. Recognition that we are in a battle for worldwide economic supremacy. Winning the economic battles will in the future be more important than winning the military battles. Understand why we are losing the battles we lose (which is most of them), and make corrections to turn those losses into wins.
6. A solution on social security before we become so overburdened with paying benefits that we can't be competitive econmically.
7. Recognition that we can't spend more to defend Germany and Japan than Germany and Japan do, without inevitably becoming less economically competitive with Germany and Japan.

Focus more on growing the pie, and less on how the pie gets divided. As JFK said, "A rising tide lifts all boats."

GDP growth hasn't been that bad. It's median real income which has stagnated in this decade, as corporations were flush with cash but kept labor costs low by not creating as many jobs.

Those at the top of the food chain did very well with profits, the rank and file, not so much.

You don't want to point to French or European taxation as the model for economic growth. They're more concerned with price stability so their central banks are not free with money like the Fed. EU GDP and job growth has lagged way behind the US.

[FatPitcher]

3. An energy strategy that makes sense. Paris Hilton has a better energy plan than either major party. I'm not kidding, she really does. How bad is that?

7. Recognition that we can't spend more to defend Germany and Japan than Germany and Japan do, without inevitably becoming less economically competitive with Germany and Japan.

I am pretty sure McCain's policy is similar, at least judging by what was said at the convention: an "all of the above" sort of thing.

Europe is, for the most part, screwed. They have birth rates that aren't high enough to maintain the working population and are being flooded with low-education, low-skill immigrants from the middle east and africa who are going to put a huge stress on entitlement systems. Combine that with longer life expectancies and you have a demographic shift that is going to make socialism just as unworkable as it is in the U.S.

The fact that these countries also rely on U.S. participation in NATO rather than spending the money for a viable national defense is another argument against putting too much stock in the existence ("success" is a bit of a stretch) of their socialist economies.

[JackB1]

McCain the Maverick 2000 Edition is long dead.

No more dead than the horse you keep beating...

That's a kangaroo or a deer or something

[XXXIV]

McCain the Maverick 2000 Edition is long dead.

No more dead than the horse you keep beating...

That's a kangaroo or a deer or something

It looks like the loch ness monster to me.

[webdanzer]

No more dead than the horse you keep beating...

That's a kangaroo or a deer or something

It looks like the loch ness monster to me.

Whatever it is, the media is reporting a whoopin' Sarah Palin shot it from a helicopter with a high powered rifle...