OT: 2008 Elections

[JRod]

You need to explain this line. It comes across as a racist statement. Are you really saying that Republicans will rally around McCain because Obama is black?

First off, you didn't even quote me right.

The right wing base in the republican party is filled by conservative christians. They are not the entire party but they are the base.

My point is in 2000 Bush was able to galvanize the right wing base through his conservative talking points. That is what helped Bush to win. My point is with the absence of that kind of issue, will Obama being an african-american galvanize enough of the right wing conservatives, who have been traditionally anti-minority.

This was in response to PK's post about McCain getting aided by the in-fighting on the Dem's side.

I don't think being black is enough of an issue to get a large majority of republicans to galvanize and support McCain, like they did when fundamental christian ideologies were used by Bush.

How did I not quote you right? Those are the exact words you typed.

So the "conservative christians" are the sub-group you're calling racist? That's SO much better. That's still a quite unfair generalization.

Look it's been well documented how the current Republican party and conservative base was formed. Reagan conservatism and Bush conservatism are two different things.

But the current Republican and more important the far right wing was solidified when the Civil Rights act was formed. Kennedy and LBJ both have admitted it will cost the Democrats states (mostly in the south).

Fiscal conservatives are not the loud majority membership in that party. These types of conservatives were swept into the house during Gingrich's agenda of Contract with America.

But the shape of the republican party was formed along racial lines in the 60s with the migration of anti-black Democrats.

There is a racist tinge in conservative America, much like there is anti-immigration (anti-mexican), and anti-gay. However, if this movement was to openly oppose african-american agendas, no candidate or platform would be advanced. The majority of America can not accept any a large sub-sect of a party, that is anti-black.

You jump to the conclusion that I said all conservative christians are racist. That's not what I said, if you read my statements.

Reread what I said carefully and then try to come back and have a logical discussion. I simply posed the question that more christian conservatives support a christian agenda that Bush ran on, then would oppose a black candidate. That having a black candidate wouldn't polarize the far right wing as much a fundamentalist agenda.

[XXXIV]

I am sure if Obama is elected he will do the right thing with Iraq without even asking the "I wanna throw or dont care if we throw Iraq to the wolves" idiots...

Politicians say the things they need to say to get elected....simple..and thats fine....As long as they arent taking at as low as the Clintons are..

I am comfortable with Obama as president...

[Jared]

America will see an underqualified and inexperienced liberal who's wife has implied that she's never been proud of her country and who's pastor is a propogator of anti-American propoganda standing next to an experienced leader who suffered physically and emotionally for his country like few ever have, and who has made a career out of bipartisanship and with views on the economy, international affairs and social issues are much more closely aligned to those held by the majority of Americans.

Ummm...not so sure about this. For example:

International affairs

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

"Do you think the result of the war with Iraq was worth the loss of American life and other costs of attacking Iraq, or not?"

Worth it: 29%
Not worth it: 64%

"In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that George W. Bush is doing in handling the situation in Iraq?

Approve: 33%
Disapprove: 62%

Social Affairs

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

"Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?"

Legal: 57%
Illegal: 40%

I'm not sure about views on the economy....considering his flip-flopping on tax cuts.

[Jared]

And I don't see anything in Obama's statement that implies that he meant a base with a perimeter. It seems like he's using base in a similar way to Bush (base as province, base as stronghold, etc.) If you have any supporting evidence that Obama meant "base w/perimeter and geographic continuity", feel free to present it.

Man...people really want to scrutinize every little nuance of what Obama says, and parse his words and opinions in the most negative manner. How 'bout parsing some of McCain's statements. We can start with him saying, multiple times, that Al Qaeda is training in Iran and going to Iraq.

[XXXIV]

Man...people really want to scrutinize every little nuance of what Obama says, .

Thats cause he is not a party b*tch...he is his own man...so...He gets it from both sides.

You have the expected GOP attacking on the one side and the totally disgusting and disgraceful Clinton campaign on the other side ...

[Brando70]

Obviously, I wish Obama would admit that his position on Iraq was the same as the one that wco stated. It would be more honest than the song and dance he's trying now. He'd never be elected, because it would be as out of step as the rest of his policies, but it would be honest.

I think he's pretty clear about how he assesses the situation, and he addresses the issue of why, despite five years, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the might of our military, we have not achieved success in Iraq:

When you have no overarching strategy, there is no clear definition of success. Success comes to be defined as the ability to maintain a flawed policy indefinitely. Here is the truth: fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer.

I have not heard McCain argue why staying in Iraq is a good idea other than leaving will "embolden" the terrorists. They are already emboldened. They are regrouping in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and despite the drops in violence in Iraq, Iraq is still one of the most violent places on earth.

I also don't understand how you expect to achieve progress without setting benchmarks. We've talked about the accountability of Iraq for their own welfare, but have never held them to any standard. They have had a blank check for five years, all because we're too scared of what will happen if we depart. We've created a corrosive codependency where we can never leave until Iraq is indpendent, and Iraq can't be independent until we leave.

That's why the entire concept of the Iraq war is flawed. We're going to teach a country how to be free and independent by occupying it with a large standing army until we decide we can leave? Imagine if the French had done the same to us after helping us drive out the British. Think we would have greated them as liberators?

[RobVarak]

Man, when the hell did this place turn into the quad at Berkley?

I'm tired and I'd rather be playing FIFA OTP, so I'll not waste too much time educating you numbskulls

Jared, with respect to the bases issue. Thanks to the wonders of CNN's silly Ballot Bowl 29-hour per day coverage I've seen about 100 of Obama's stump speeches. He always uses the same phrase, "if AQ builds a base in Iraq that the Iraqis can't destroy." Not, "if AQ builds a level of support," or "if the Iraqi's can't pacify a certain area," or "if AQ's activities become such that the Iraqi forces can't contain them." I'll admit it's a semantic argument rather than hard evidence, but it's how I see it. He chooses his language carefully and I'm inclined to believe he and his people knew what they were doing in this regard.

I think he's doing one of two things: 1. Leaving a whopping loophole for himself to get into office, consult with the military and conclude that the AQ activity is such that he can't draw down the presence in the manner he promised; or 2. Creating such a narrow criterion for renewed intervention that it can essentially never be met; and in doing so choosing to abandon the people of Iraq to the forces of sectarian violence and internationally-sponsored insurgents.

I could live with Scenario 1, which for all its dishonesty at least results in sound international policy. But based on this rubbish bin speech today I'm starting to fear that he's serving up ol' No. 2.

As for your feeling that he gets unfair scrutiny, I'll repeat something I said earlier about the Wright issue. When your record as a politician only goes as far as a couple dozen votes in Springfiled, IL people are going to look extra hard for a way to fill in the blanks. Neither the media nor the electorate would be doing their job if they just shrugged and took his stump and policy papers at face value. Typically they would look for inconsistencies with his voting record or prior speeches. That's not an option with soemone like Obama. Live by your outsider status, die by it.

The polling data is interesting. The Iraq data only reinforces the obvious point that people don't like Bush. The interesting poll is the one that looks forward and asks who would be the better decisionmaking party the GOP or Democrats. There's no concensus, the gap between the two is minimal and the number of undecideds and those who think it doesn't matter is large. That's fertile ground for McCain.

I'm too exhausted to go into the rest of the data, but there's enough there in the social and economic issues to allow me to stick to my guns and say that McCain is closer to the mainstream on those issues than Obama.

Again, if nominated he'll be the most liberal major party nominee in over 20 years. His position on taxes, the size and role of government etc. are diametrically opposed to those of virtually every president since Carter. That's a huge leap for a stable and small-c conservative electorate to make. I'll grant you that epoch-changing elections like that do happen, but typically they happen in times of enormous economic, social or political crisis.

Brando, I think it's best if you and I just agree to disagree on any issue that even tangentially touches the Iraq war. I love you as much as I can love any man whom I know only digitally and who's crazy enough to move the U.P., so I'll just say I disagree with virtually everything you said...even the punctuation I will say that there are important and quantitative benchmarks used to measure the reconstruction and that the DoD has been quite blunt in disclosing their assessments of the status of those benchmarks.

XXXIV, my numerically-pseudonymed friend. Why do you even read this thread? We are all pretty sure that you hate everyone from every party, you're sure that all politicians suck and that anytime anyone makes any substantive post you assume they're party hacks, brainwashed partisan automatons and baby seal killers. Why don't you go pick on the music thread for awhile?

Geez, even my terse posts are getting too long these days.

[wco81]

Only thing on taxes that I've heard from Obama is about letting some of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest sunset, as they were originally drafted.

I'm sure you know about the Estate Tax exemption going down to $1 million or something like that, after going up to $3.5 million, then unlimited for 1 year and then to $1 million, which is historically higher than it has been.

Wall Street speculates that dividend and capital gains may go back up to 20 or 25%. There are a lot of individual investors who have benefitted from paying 15% instead of ordinary income taxes on these gains. But it's the very high income earners who've benefitted the most, as most of their income comes from dividends, compared to middle-class earners who may have a small percentage of dividends or capital gains (especially distributions from mutual funds held outside of retirement accounts) but get most of their income from wages.

So Obama on taxes isn't that different from what Kerry was saying and even though Kerry lost, he got more votes than anyone except Bush.

Regardless of who wins in 2008 or 2012, higher taxes may re-enter the national debate as deficits and spending will increase budgetary and economic pressures. The deal brokered by the Fed and Treasury for Bear Stearns by an administration ideologically opposed to such interventions in the free market may be a sign of things to come, with more talk spreading among the business community that the federal govt., that is taxpayers, may ultimately have to pay to end the mortgage/financial crisis.

Of course nobody is going to volunteer for higher taxes (although even some supply-siders recognize that higher taxes are being deferred to future generations) but if the current crisis deepens -- people seeing their home values decline, a longer and more severe recession, high inflation, etc. -- more people may remember that Clinton raised taxes on high-income earners shortly after he took office and the economy still recovered and even prospered for a long stretch, while the fiscal situation did a dramatic 180-degree turn for the better.

[JackB1]

That's why the entire concept of the Iraq war is flawed. We're going to teach a country how to be free and independent by occupying it with a large standing army until we decide we can leave?

BINGO

[FatPitcher]

Only thing on taxes that I've heard from Obama is about letting some of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest sunset, as they were originally drafted.

...

Of course nobody is going to volunteer for higher taxes (although even some supply-siders recognize that higher taxes are being deferred to future generations) but if the current crisis deepens -- people seeing their home values decline, a longer and more severe recession, high inflation, etc. -- more people may remember that Clinton raised taxes on high-income earners shortly after he took office and the economy still recovered and even prospered for a long stretch, while the fiscal situation did a dramatic 180-degree turn for the better.

To pay for several hundred billion in proposed spending and cover the rather large current deficit (larger once we hit this upcoming recession full-on), he'll have to do more than let tax cuts expire. Eliminating taxes for senior citizens making less then $50k is pretty stupid (in terms of fiscal policy, not in terms of getting elected), since senior citizens are already getting the biggest slice of government pie, draining systems that at current rate will not be solvent by the time we are old enough to get them.

While we're on the subject, what is the "right" percentange for rich people to pay in income taxes? Should it vary by area based on cost of living? $200k / year isn't particularly rich in some parts of the country. I've never heard anyone on the left advocate anything but tax increases regardless of what the current tax level is, and I haven't heard anyone on the right advocate anything but cuts.

As far as imitating the Clinton tax hikes goes--I'm all for it! As long as it brings back $10 oil and causes another world-changing invention like the internet to flourish, that is.

[matthewk]

Reread what I said carefully and then try to come back and have a logical discussion. I simply posed the question that more christian conservatives support a christian agenda that Bush ran on, then would oppose a black candidate. That having a black candidate wouldn't polarize the far right wing as much a fundamentalist agenda.

I try to read all of your posts carefully. I have to, because you constantly leave out and add in words that result in broken sentences that make no sense.

How logical is it to make a statement like "3) White America wants to see him this way"? What conclusion would you like me to make about that one? Then you follow it up by saying asking if a black candiate is enough to rallly the right wing base around McCain.

Is this 2008 or 1960? A lot of the "Berkley quad" crowd seems to think we're still in the 60s. I think some of you are selling "white america" short when it comes to race.

[XXXIV]

That's why the entire concept of the Iraq war is flawed. We're going to teach a country how to be free and independent by occupying it with a large standing army until we decide we can leave?

BINGO

Sounds like Japan after WWII.......

[Leebo33]

Man, when the hell did this place turn into the quad at Berkley?

LOL. I actually like find it a nice diversion because in real life I don't get to talk to liberals much. I'm too busy hanging out with my fellow "rich" (according to Democrat standards), white, Christian, racist, gun owning, war hawking, Republican friends.

Just to make sure everyone knows that is sarcasm, I'll add a Good point or EXACTLY!

[wco81]

To pay for several hundred billion in proposed spending and cover the rather large current deficit (larger once we hit this upcoming recession full-on), he'll have to do more than let tax cuts expire.

What proposed spending are you referring to? Health care? I'm not aware that the cost of any health care reform has been quantified. It may cost hundreds of billions.

Of course, you could say there are hundreds of billions or even trillions to be saved from not continuing the war.

Health care is cited in surveys as being on the radar of voters but I don't know that there will be a big mandate for "socialized medicine" even if a Democrat wins the presidency.

The headlines are always about 40-50 million uninsured. But the majority of people are insured and they're not going to be eager to pay for the uninsured (although we are currently paying for them in indirect ways).

If the economic outlook is as gloomy in the fall as it is now, there's not going to be appetite for spending on a new program (even if a new health care system may ultimately reduce per capita spending on health care). Especially if the govt. ends up having to pay to address the mortgage/financial crisis as some speculate.

I support health care reform. We have the only privatized system among the G7 nations but we spend more per capita and achieve lower metrics on health care than just about all other industrialized countries.

But most Americans aren't ready to ditch the current system unless out of pocket costs -- deductibles, co-payments, premiums, coverage limits -- reach such a level that they become unaffordable for most Americans. If health care costs continue on their current trajectory, that will happen but we're not at that point yet.

[FatPitcher]

Health care, the tax breaks, and the $4k college tuition subsidy are the biggest promises so far, plus there are a bunch of smaller ones.

I don't know - if something's not economically feasible, I would think it best not to promise it. Reminds me of this girl who became my 5th grade class president by promising candy machines in classrooms.

[Jared]

Man, have any of you been to Berkeley? I have...and it's more liberal than anything here. I can't stand a lot of the positions of the far left.

And as an aside, I've got a lot of love for everyone on these forums, regardless of their political views (yes, even Rob and FatPitcher). For the most part, everyone is civil, well-spoken, and we get viewpoints from almost the entire spectrum. And once I get back to online gaming, I'll be looking forward to getting whupped by all of you at a wide variety of games.

[Brando70]

Man, when the hell did this place turn into the quad at Berkley?

I'm tired and I'd rather be playing FIFA OTP, so I'll not waste too much time educating you numbskulls

Brando, I think it's best if you and I just agree to disagree on any issue that even tangentially touches the Iraq war. I love you as much as I can love any man whom I know only digitally and who's crazy enough to move the U.P., so I'll just say I disagree with virtually everything you said...even the punctuation

Okay, I laughed my ass off at that. I guess you have a lot of time to think about what you're going to post when you're in Free Roam mode in FIFA Clearly I need to return to CoD4 poker nights so we can settle these arguments like virtual gentlemen. I will of course lose because, like most liberals, I am a poor shot.

And if I ever become wealthy enough to become part of the problem instead of part of the solution, you will be the first digital stranger I will consider for my tax-avoidance estate planning.

I do think that, despite some flare-ups, we've conducted ourselves pretty well considering how inflammatory some of these topics can be. We've come a long way since the Handhelds forum.

[JackB1]

Can I just interject here that this has been an extremely interesting discussion and it's great the way you guys can exchange differing viewpoints and everyone has stayed pretty cool and civil throughout.

Makes me proud to be an American DSPian.

[wco81]

Man, have any of you been to Berkeley? I have...and it's more liberal than anything here. I can't stand a lot of the positions of the far left.

When I went there, about 15 years ago, it was nothing like it's portrayed from the '60s.

First of all, there is no "Berkeley quad." All the political events occurred on Sproul Plaza, which is by the administration building but outside Sather gate, through which you have to enter to get to classes.

Lower Sproul Plaza had become a student center with sports bars and shops with pricey merchandise. There was no activism going on there.

Upper Sproul Plaza had some activists on any given day, most of whom were not students. These weren't all far left activists either. The most vocal ones were evangelical types.

Most students didn't engage with them. If anything there were a lot of bored students from local high schools when there were bigger crowds than usual.

Greek system was pretty popular. Going to frat parties was a bigger draw for most students than taking part in any political demonstration.

The far left is as much of a minority at Berkeley as the rest of the country.

[matthewk]

For me, these discussions are like being on the field during a game. You may not be the guys buddy during gametime, but you leave those things on the field. Same for here. I try not to carry any disagreements I may have with ayone outside of that thread. It all gets left on the field, or in this case, left in the thread.

[RobVarak]

First of all, there is no "Berkeley quad." All the political events occurred on Sproul Plaza, which is by the administration building but outside Sather gate, through which you have to enter to get to classes.

I meant that metaphorically, sort of like Obama's "base" comments

I think given recent events regarding recruitment and ROTC Berkley may well still be farther left than most campuses, but of course as a state institution of thast size is not the commune that it once was.

[wco81]

Well there's no big forum, either physical or metaphorical, where students gather to discuss politics or demonstrate or whatever.

Most students are preoccupied with their classes or getting recreation.

The Sixties were the anomaly, not the norm.

Students don't have the luxury to preoccupy themselves with anything beyond school/career or letting off steam from the pressures of the former.

Berkeley students are probably against the war and maybe in higher percentages than most other campuses. But they're not marching or demonstrating against it the way their predecessors used to in the '60s and early '70s.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, backlash against ROTC isn't limited to this one campus.

[FatPitcher]

With Berkeley, it's the city residents and college professors (lots of overlap there) that hold the more extreme views far more so than the college students. Of course, the professors do their best to pass those views on, but that situation is hardly unique to UC-Berkeley.

I'm glad Berkeley is the way it is. It's good that people can go live in places where the laws and culture are to their liking. Because moving from country to country is difficult, it's important to have locations within the country (on the state or city level) where people can move to a place that best suits their lifestyle. For example, many (often "progressive") wealthy people from Massachussets have moved to New Hampshire because the taxes are much lower there. It's like a free market where cities and states attract residents by providing the most desireable living conditions and lose them by being poorly run.

[dougb]

Well there's no big forum, either physical or metaphorical, where students gather to discuss politics or demonstrate or whatever.

Most students are preoccupied with their classes or getting recreation.

The Sixties were the anomaly, not the norm.

Students don't have the luxury to preoccupy themselves with anything beyond school/career or letting off steam from the pressures of the former.

Berkeley students are probably against the war and maybe in higher percentages than most other campuses. But they're not marching or demonstrating against it the way their predecessors used to in the '60s and early '70s.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, backlash against ROTC isn't limited to this one campus.

Do you think the students would be in the streets if there was a draft? Because it would be interesting to speculate on whether there would have been as much mass resistance to the war in Vietnam had it been an all volunteer force - not that I think you could staff a war that size on an all volunteer basis.

Best wishes,

Doug

[XXXIV]

Do you think the students would be in the streets if there was a draft?

Yes ...

This isnt even close in any way except $$$$...

Tens of thousands less dead and a volunteer army....