OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

[JackB1]

I just found out that while McCain is against abortion, he is all for
embryonic stem cell research. While I personally applaud this, I would
imagine if more conservatives knew about this, they would be in a tizzy.
He hasn't been too vocal about this, but it's true.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/95212.php
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=26574

I would imagine Sara Palin wouldn't agree with this. She is also against abortion/choice even if the mother is raped.

[JRod]

This whole Palin/hacking thing brings up an interesting question....

Let's say for argument's sake, some seriously troubling info is uncovered in Palin's emails....can it be legally be used against her or would it just hurt the general public's perception of her? Since this info was obtained illegally does that nullify the whole thing? I mean if it was in fact her emails, what..if any...consequences could result?

I'm not a lawer you would have to ask Ogre Law (Ya I saw the pictures...competely destroyed my image of Rob.) .

I may resemble that remark, but hey no personal attacks!!!

Some discussion of the legalities of the Palin e-mail issue available here. Some of the comments are informative as well.

http://volokh.com/posts/1221704175.shtml

I always thought you looked like this...

[FatPitcher]

I just found out that while McCain is against abortion, he is all for
embryonic stem cell research. While I personally applaud this, I would
imagine if more conservatives knew about this, they would be in a tizzy.
He hasn't been too vocal about this, but it's true.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/95212.php
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=26574

Just like they went nuts when Dick Cheney said he was in favor of legalizing gay marriage?

Anyway, we all know that McCain = Bush and Bush = outlawed stem cell research. He's been running ads saying that he supports stem cell research. What won't this dishonest campaign stoop to?

[Jackdog]

ACLU Investigates hacking Palin's email................ Not.

[JackB1]

Anyway, we all know that McCain = Bush and Bush = outlawed stem cell research. He's been running ads saying that he supports stem cell research. What won't this dishonest campaign stoop to?

I haven't seen any of those ads here in GA. The key though is "embryonic"
stem cell research. Bush was for stem cell research, as long as it didn't involve cells from embryo's. There is a big difference and I am not sure most are aware of that.

[Teal]

Well, the hacker might be known...
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/sep/1 ... -e-mail-p/

[FatPitcher]

Bush was for stem cell research, as long as it didn't involve cells from embryo's. There is a big difference and I am not sure most are aware of that.

That's one of the (minor) points I was making

In other news, Reid is apparently waiting for focus group results before deciding whether he was in favor of AIG bailout or not: http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/ ... tions.html

[TheGamer]

Of course this is crap and not true. But this would be the funniest thing ever.

http://www.blackbottom.com/watch.php?v=WdBJd9b9i8A

[RobVarak]

Latest statewide polling results.

[Jackdog]

Nice.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/18 ... -in-essay/

[Jackdog]

Obama dosn't want this idiots support.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8yQ1BVDaIk

[MACTEPsporta]

I couldn't respond anything to yesterday's demeaning and shameful allegations made by Rob, as I was too busy collecting dollar bills.

I am back now. I was listening to Palin's speach on the way to work, and I have to say -- she was awful. She kept getting the words mixed up, inserted campaign slogans inappropriately and has absolutely butchered the English language on several occasions. And, yes, I know a thing or two about butchering the English language.

Thankfully, she was only introducing McCain, whom, I could, at least, listen to, without cringing. That must be the plan. Look at her, listen to me!

[RobVarak]

What Hilary supporters changed their support to McCain?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122179087917055511.html

There goes another. It's still too limited to be a trend, but it does point to the quiet DLC v. traditional liberal schism that still exists in the party as well as the lingering bitterness from the primaries.

[pk500]

Let's see: We have the Federal government bailing out the financial and mortgage industry this week. Seven years ago, the Federal government created a separate department to organize and administer homeland security, including some measures that many consider an infringement on civil liberties. We've also had a Federal government that has begun "faith-based" initiatives.

Now which party subscribes to the theory of less government, of less interference in people's daily lives? I'm having a really hard time telling which is which these days.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

And this is pure naivete by me, but didn't Lehman Brothers have compromising pictures from Dubya's frat parties from the 60s, too?

Why do Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG get the parachute from Uncle Sam, but Lehman Brothers is allowed to splat on the tarmac?

Someone please enlighten me.

Take care,
PK

[RobVarak]

And this is pure naivete by me, but didn't Lehman Brothers have compromising pictures from Dubya's frat parties from the 60s, too?

Why do Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG get the parachute from Uncle Sam, but Lehman Brothers is allowed to splat on the tarmac?

Someone please enlighten me.

Take care,
PK

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2 ... #more-3097

Pertinent quote

3) Why did the Treasury and Fed let Lehman fail but rescue Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and A.I.G.?

We have already explained why Fannie, Freddie, and A.I.G. were supported. In March, Bear Stearns lost its access to credit in almost the same fashion as Lehman; yet Bear was rescued and Lehman was not.
Bear Stearns was bailed out for two reasons. One was that the Fed had very imperfect information about what was going on at Bear. The Fed was not Bear’s regulator, the amount of publicly available information was limited, and its staff was not versed in all of the ways in which Bear might have been connected to other parts of the financial system.

The second problem was that Bear’s counterparties in many transactions were not prepared for the sudden demise of Bear. A Bear bankruptcy might have triggered a wave of forced selling of collateral that Bear would have given its counterparties. Given the potential chaos that would have resulted from Bear Stearns filing for bankruptcy, the Fed had little choice but to engineer a rescue. In doing so, the Fed argued that the rescue was a rare, perhaps once-in-a-generation, event.

When Bear was rescued, the Fed created a new lending facility to help provide bridge financing to other investment banks. The new lending arrangement was proposed precisely because there were concerns that Lehman and other banks were at risk for a Bear-like run. Since March, the Fed had also studied what to do if this were to happen again; it concluded that if it modified its lending facility slightly, it could withstand a bankruptcy; it made these changes to the lending facility on Sunday night.

Once the Fed had made these changes and determined that it and the others in the market had an understanding of the indirect or “collateral damage” effects of a bankruptcy, it could rely on the protections of the bankruptcy code to stop the run on Lehman, and to sell its operating assets separately from its toxic mortgage-backed assets.

Against this backdrop, if the government had rescued Lehman, it would have repudiated the claim that the Bear rescue was extraordinary; it would have also conceded that in the six months since Bear failed, neither the new facility that it set up nor the other steps to make markets more robust were reliable. Essentially, the Fed and the Treasury would have been admitting that they had lied or were incompetent in stabilizing the financial system — or both.

It was not surprising that they drew the line at helping Lehman. Based on all the publicly available information, this was clearly the right thing to do.

[pk500]

Thanks, Rob!

Take care,
PK

[RobVarak]

Thanks, Rob!

Take care,
PK

Of course it's legitimate to ask, with the benefit of hindsight, if the gov't were going to get in with both feet the way it appears to be doing today, why not bail out Lehman. I think it stems from the fact that they didn't know as recently as last weekend that they would have to be fashioning a plan as comprehensive as the one they appear to be developing, but I honestly can't say.

[FatPitcher]

Now that we own AIG, perhaps we can lobby to sponsor a different football club.

[wco81]

Let's see: We have the Federal government bailing out the financial and mortgage industry this week. Seven years ago, the Federal government created a separate department to organize and administer homeland security, including some measures that many consider an infringement on civil liberties. We've also had a Federal government that has begun "faith-based" initiatives.

Now which party subscribes to the theory of less government, of less interference in people's daily lives? I'm having a really hard time telling which is which these days.

Take care,
PK

They're doing it because they had no choice.

It would be like people who believed in faith healing letting doctors treat their children when they're in dire shape.

The choice was to try to limit the damage or hew to ideology and watch the ship go down in flames.

I don't think Paulson or Bernanke are the free-market/libertarian ideologues that other members of their party are. So why would they recite those campaign slogans about small govt. while letting the financial system collapse under their watch?

The question isn't whether the party still subscribes to the less government philosophy. The question is, if they honestly believed in this philosophy, why did they put guys in charge at the Treasury and the Fed who aren't ideologues?

At any rate, the AEI and Cato types aren't very vocal right now, even while politicians of all stripes are talking about more regulation going forward.

[MACTEPsporta]

but it does point to the quiet DLC v. traditional liberal schism that still exists in the party as well as the lingering bitterness from the primaries.

Yeah, right. Ideological differences within the Democratic Party. That is surely not the reason. Bitterness from primaries, I can see, stubborness and just simple dislike, I can also understand, but to say that there are people who are crossing over because of ideological differences... C'mon, now.

There are barely any differences in ideology between republicans and democrats, let alone within one party. Both parties are centrist. Republican Party was founded as progressive alternative to the dems, if I remember correctly. I understand positions have shifted (or rather republicans decided to take the conservative approach, while democrats rethought their views and employed slightly more progressive outlook), but on the world map of politics they are so close ideologically, it's a dot. Libertarians, who are somehow considered the wing of the GOP, are widely viewed as left of center in the world. Well, SW of center, if you want to be exact. So where does that put the GOP?

[RobVarak]

but it does point to the quiet DLC v. traditional liberal schism that still exists in the party as well as the lingering bitterness from the primaries.

Yeah, right. Ideological differences within the Democratic Party. That is surely not the reason. Bitterness from primaries, I can see, stubborness and just simple dislike, I can also understand, but to say that there are people who are crossing over because of ideological differences... C'mon, now.

There are barely any differences in ideology between republicans and democrats, let alone within one party. Both parties are centrist. Republican Party was founded as progressive alternative to the dems, if I remember correctly. I understand positions have shifted (or rather republicans decided to take the conservative approach, while democrats rethought their views and employed slightly more progressive outlook), but on the world map of politics they are so close ideologically, it's a dot. Libertarians, who are somehow considered the wing of the GOP, are widely viewed as left of center in the world. Well, SW of center, if you want to be exact. So where does that put the GOP?

MACTEP, I love you like a Ukrainian employee but you're wrong here. While you are correct that on a worldwide spectrum of political philosophy both would be centrist, that ignores the fact that in the political culture of the US these distinctions are sometimes vast and very important. And for the purposes of US electoral politics, that's what matters. We are not going to have a socialist or authoritarian party by world standards anytime soon because those parties do not reflect the electorate (and to the extent that they may represent very small minorities they're easily consumed by the big parties.)

It's a matter of scale. To extend your analogy, if you zoom in on that dot to the level of the American electorate you'd see that it contains multitudes of very dynamic sub-groups. For example, the late 80's/early 90's featured a very intersting ideological and tactical schism in the Democratic party centered around the Democratic Leadership Council. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic ... ip_Council

Having a broad worldview is important and beneficial, but it can also make it easier to miss the glorious differences between the types of trees because you're gazing at the forest.

[MACTEPsporta]

MACTEP, I love you like a Ukrainian employee...

If there ever was a statement that rendered me speechless...Nevertheless, I'll try to gather the strength to go on...

for the purposes of US electoral politics, that's what matters. We are not going to have a socialist or authoritarian party by world standards anytime soon because those parties do not reflect the electorate...

Here is why the global view helps in this instance. American electorate is concerned with issues not ideologies. And while certain corollations can, and often, have to be made, these two are not the same. Ideologies are constant, within the party lines of course, while issues are always changing. American electorate votes based on the party's reactions/solutions to the issues, not their ideology.

To answer the notion that will surely arise shortly in this discussion: stating that parties solutions to issues are in fact, based on ideologies, could create a valid argument, if it weren't for the fact that Americans have very few (if any) preconceived notions as to which ideology is best suited to handle the particular issue at hand. So, voters ultimately make their decision based on their perception of who presents the best case. That's also the reason neither party's ever been able to hold on to power for an extended period of time. If it was the matter of ideology, that wouldn't be the case.

[pk500]

That's also the reason neither party's ever been able to hold on to power for an extended period of time. If it was the matter of ideology, that wouldn't be the case.

And that's a good thing, the beauty of the American system. One-party domination of any political system based on idealogy leads to corruption and ineffective government.

Plus one only needs to look back at Gingrich's "Republican Revolution" in 1994 to see how fleeting that one-party domination and its associated arrogance can be shredded to tatters by the American electorate. The Republicans lost seats in 1996 and 1998, and they failed to unseat Clinton in 1996.

Take care,
PK

[MACTEPsporta]

That's also the reason neither party's ever been able to hold on to power for an extended period of time. If it was the matter of ideology, that wouldn't be the case.

And that's a good thing, the beauty of the American system. One-party domination of any political system based on ideology leads to corruption and ineffective government.

Absolutely. I am in no way advocating for totalitarian government. We weren't arguing the benefits of the system, but rather the absense of ideology in American electorate.

That said, true democracy should include more than two parties. Especially when the two are as similar as Dems and GOP.