U.S. Presidential Election

[partofme]

Well just a little over two weeks to go until it's finally time to vote. Obama is doing much better than I expected although I don't think he is going to win in the landslide that some are predicting. I do think that this race would have been much closer had it not been for the economic situation we are in.

[Michael]

No doubt about it, Obama has been benefiting from both the economic downturn (which is closely identified with the Bush regime) and also McCain's insufferably bad campaign.

As it stands now, it sure looks like Obama will win the election.

On that basis, I'm surprised we haven't heard from OBL rooting for another Republican administration that has served his interests so well.

[partofme]

I don't know what it is but I do expect something big to happen in the last few weeks to shake things up. That always seems to happen. A message from him was what came about in 2004. I think that most democrats are still worried simply because Obama was such a long shot and because they are not used to being in such a good position.

[Michael]

Looks like the The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune have all endorsed Obama for President.

The first and last of these names are rather surprising, given their long history of strong anti-Democratic party positions. The LAT has been moving centerist for a long time (seeking to survive in tough market conditions).

I personally have no sympathy for these grand ole newspapers. They've always been able to ignore market issues due to having deep-pocketed plutocrat owners who used the newspapers for their own plutocratic politics.

Interesting to watch these newspapers try to survive according to normal market rules. That means a lot less pandering to plutocrats. Imagine that.

[Michael]

The biggest 'non-news' item of the weekend appears to be some endorsement Colin Powell just gave to Obama.

Kiss of death in my book. Powell is totally tainted and has proven to have seriously bad political judgement.

If Obama had any balls he would have said "thanks, but no thanks Colin" (you can put your endorsement in the same place as your 'yellow cake').

Colin Powell is second only to Bush-Cheney in having total responsibility for launching the Iraq War. I will cut no slack to Powell at all. He's a big boy and he knew what he was doing and what he was getting into. He endorsed Bush and the Iraq War and invested his entire personal integrity into the project to assert the legality and desirability of the operation.

The Iraq War was one of the all-time worse US foreign policy debacles and Colin Powell was one of its chief architects, cheerleaders and propagandists.

And he's never apologized or shown any remorse for that. Piss on Powell.

[dilettante]

The biggest 'non-news' item of the weekend appears to be some endorsement Colin Powell just gave to Obama.

Kiss of death in my book. Powell is totally tainted and has proven to have seriously bad political judgement.

If Obama had any balls he would have said "thanks, but no thanks Colin" (you can put your endorsement in the same place as your 'yellow cake').

Colin Powell is second only to Bush-Cheney in having total responsibility for launching the Iraq War. I will cut no slack to Powell at all. He's a big boy and he knew what he was doing and what he was getting into. He endorsed Bush and the Iraq War and invested his entire personal integrity into the project to assert the legality and desirability of the operation.

The Iraq War was one of the all-time worse US foreign policy debacles and Colin Powell was one of its chief architects, cheerleaders and propagandists.

And he's never apologized or shown any remorse for that. Piss on Powell.

"Kiss of death," perhaps, but I'd argue its for McCain, not Obama.

In spite of the points you raises, Powell remains incredibly popular in the US and has long received the respect of both parties. He was floated as a VP pick on both sides of the isle and he's associated (rightly or wrongly) with military and foreign policy experience, areas where Obama is perceived as weakest next to McCain.

WRT to Powell's involvement in the Iraq war, that only makes his endorsement more powerful. Those who strongly oppose US involvement in Iraq are going to vote Obama regardless of who endorses him. But moderate Republicans who are concerned that Obama might do something naive or foolish in Iraq are likely to be comforted (again, rightly or wrongly) by Gen. Powell's endorsement.

As best I can tell, this may be the only endorsement that actually matters for the whole campaign (unless one believes there was ever a chance that Hillary would not endorse Obama). As a rule, endorsements don't sway votes, but from the people I've talked to yesterday and this morning, Powell's just might.

(on an unrelated note, it's nice to see you back online :) )

[Michael]

"Kiss of death," perhaps, but I'd argue its for McCain, not Obama.

In spite of the points you raises, Powell remains incredibly popular in the US and has long received the respect of both parties. He was floated as a VP pick on both sides of the isle and he's associated (rightly or wrongly) with military and foreign policy experience, areas where Obama is perceived as weakest next to McCain.

WRT to Powell's involvement in the Iraq war, that only makes his endorsement more powerful. Those who strongly oppose US involvement in Iraq are going to vote Obama regardless of who endorses him. But moderate Republicans who are concerned that Obama might do something naive or foolish in Iraq are likely to be comforted (again, rightly or wrongly) by Gen. Powell's endorsement.

As best I can tell, this may be the only endorsement that actually matters for the whole campaign (unless one believes there was ever a chance that Hillary would not endorse Obama). As a rule, endorsements don't sway votes, but from the people I've talked to yesterday and this morning, Powell's just might.

(on an unrelated note, it's nice to see you back online :) )
Excellent points Dilettante! Very interesting perspective. And yes, I agree with most of what you say.

I used to be a big fan of Powell's so I'm just bitter that he turned out so badly. I don't expect the public to view political issues the way I do since they don't follow the topic the way I do.

And yes, it is good to be back up and running! :)

[Americano]

Well just a little over two weeks to go until it's finally time to vote. Obama is doing much better than I expected although I don't think he is going to win in the landslide that some are predicting. I do think that this race would have been much closer had it not been for the economic situation we are in.

And McSame's VP choice, shudder, Palin.

I've already voted. Oregon is the only US state to use all mail-in ballots. Mighty convenient as most polling places (often in churches) frown on one having pen in one hand and frosty cold beer in the other while making such decisions.

[The Sister]

The Iraq War was one of the all-time worse US foreign policy debacles and Colin Powell was one of its chief architects, cheerleaders and propagandists.

And he's never apologized or shown any remorse for that. Piss on Powell.

I disagree, I think the Powell endorsement was the last and most important of the election.

I give that he was one of the cheerleaders and an inadvertant propagandist, but I can find no evidence that he was in any way an architect and in fact much evidence that he warned against the whole idea of Iraq and was thereafter cut out of all decision making on the subject.

The point of his endorsement was not for liberals who will never forgive him for your exact reasons but for the much talked about 'independents' and swing voters who don't see the run up to the war as clearly as those against it do.

In 'independant' world I imagine they see Powell as the valiant soldier who followed his leader to the death - just like they are trained to do. And independants probably forgive him. After all he 'honourably served' Amercia in the war he did win and in the long term the Powell doctrine wins over the Bush doctrine. And his contempt for the Bush administration is seen as an admission of being wrong.

Obama got Ted Kennedy when he needed him, Hilary Clinton when he needed her, Warren Buffet when he needed him and now the clincher with the independents - Colin Powell. Brilliant.

[Americano]

I'd like to add, as a life-long fiscally conservative socially moderate registered Republican who's sick of the last eight years of corrupt thugs running the US, I only voted for one Republican, county treasurer, at county, state and national levels.

[partofme]

Looks like the The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune have all endorsed Obama for President.

The first and last of these names are rather surprising, given their long history of strong anti-Democratic party positions. The LAT has been moving centerist for a long time (seeking to survive in tough market conditions).

I personally have no sympathy for these grand ole newspapers. They've always been able to ignore market issues due to having deep-pocketed plutocrat owners who used the newspapers for their own plutocratic politics.

Interesting to watch these newspapers try to survive according to normal market rules. That means a lot less pandering to plutocrats. Imagine that.

Who do you think The Economist will endorse? I still think it will be McCain simply because they focus so much on free trade but I think it will be a very reluctant endorsement. I could be wrong though.

[Michael]

Who do you think The Economist will endorse? I still think it will be McCain simply because they focus so much on free trade but I think it will be a very reluctant endorsement. I could be wrong though.
Well, you might be surprised.

The Economist endorsed Kerry in 2004 (plugging their nose of course while so doing).

They essentially argued back then that Bush was just so toxic they'd endorse a dog for US president.

I can't see them changing course now. They will probably endorse Obama, with strong caveats about Obama's weak 'free trade' credentials.

[Americano]

Well, you might be surprised.

The Economist endorsed Kerry in 2004 (plugging their nose of course while so doing).

They essentially argued back then that Bush was just so toxic they'd endorse a dog for US president.

I can't see them changing course now. They will probably endorse Obama, with strong caveats about Obama's weak 'free trade' credentials.

Free trade that has never existed.

[Dominick]

Free trade that has never existed.
And would be a disaster for the USA (and the rest of the West) if it did.

[Michael]

And would be a disaster for the USA (and the rest of the West) if it did.
I'm not convinced of this.

The more trade between US and Canada 'approaches' pure free trade (and it is probably the free-est trade relation on the planet), the more it is mutually beneficial, efficient and effective.

Likewise with the original "EU" being mostly a custom's union. Dropping trade tariffs to each other was beneficial to the European economy as a whole.

[Americano]

I'm not convinced of this.

The more trade between US and Canada 'approaches' pure free trade (and it is probably the free-est trade relation on the planet), the more it is mutually beneficial, efficient and effective.

Likewise with the original "EU" being mostly a custom's union. Dropping trade tariffs to each other was beneficial to the European economy as a whole.

Futurists have long held that global trade (among other exchanges and governance) will eventually be relegated to a continent basis when production costs (including remaining natural resources and future technology) are equalized. The world is still composed of far too many governing ideologies for that to happen in our lifetimes and the four horsemen are still present and ready to to ride, so at this point in time the world is still in a 'sort things out' mode with no true cohesion for common benefit other than war. As a current example I offer US administration's recent mad cow disease ban on Canadian beef exports to the US as punishment for Canada not becoming a primary supporter of the US 'coalition of the willing' that destroyed Iraq.

[Michael]

Futurists have long held that global trade (among other exchanges and governance) will eventually be relegated to a continent basis when production costs (including remaining natural resources and future technology) are equalized. The world is still composed of far too many governing ideologies for that to happen in our lifetimes and the four horsemen are still present and ready to to ride, so at this point in time the world is still in a 'sort things out' mode with no true cohesion for common benefit other than war. As a current example I offer US administration's recent mad cow disease ban on Canadian beef exports to the US as punishment for Canada not becoming a primary supporter of the US 'coalition of the willing' that destroyed Iraq.
Yes, that's an excellent example. US vs Canada softwood lumber disputes are also closely related to US Senatorial election challenges in particular US states.

But I think those are the exceptions rather than the rule there. Under NAFTA and the North American Auto-Pact that preceded it, Canada has progressively 'stolen' a disproportionate amount of auto-manufacturing from the US. This is perfectly rational - in Canada, automakers don't have to pay out huge healthcare premiums on their employees (and retirees). Ergo, it is rational for Canadian auto industry to expand and US auto industry to contract according to 'free-trade' between US and Canada (which has always been the case).

In pure economic terms, Canada has a 'competitive advantage' in auto-manufacturing vis-a-vis the USA.

Given that this is the US Election thread, perhaps we ought to have a separate thread for trade discussions.

[Michael]

The Presidential Debates Are a Scam

Every four years, the two parties and news media collude in this PR spectacle. It's time for citizens to reclaim control.

Have you wondered why the presidential debates don't present any serious ideas or encourage any substantive exchanges about policy and political philosophy? Have you noticed that the events resemble a whirring jukebox of familiar sound bites -- a highly produced, tightly scripted affair with with no surprises and little passion?

There's a reason. Both candidates and their political parties want it this way. The debates are not the production of some independent third party like the League of Women Voters, the host university or news organizations. They are co-produced by the Democratic and Republican Parties themselves, who have ingeniously disguised their actual roles by nominally delegating control to the Commission on Presidential Debates

The Commission sounds like some venerable group of eminent graybeards and experts. Not so. It is a group of party apparatchiks whose express goal is to broker the terms of the debate in order to advance and protect each candidate's interests. For the 2008 debates, the Commission negotiated a 31-page memo of understanding that lays out in precise detail the rules of stagecraft, questioning, follow-up, audience deportment, and other conditions. The contents of this memo, however, have not been disclosed despite requests by citizen groups.

Source (http://www.alternet.org/democracy/102829/the_presidential_debates_are_a_scam/)

Well that's not exactly a surprise. :D

The artificial format of US Presidential debates was put into stark relief during the recent Canadian Leadership debates. There, the leaders of the five major parties sat at a round table with a moderator who started the ball rolling in each segment by directing a question at each leader in turn. The leaders were free to engage each other 'unscripted' and able to question each other. The moderator was pretty much just there to pull them appart if things get ugly.

Without a doubt, that format gives a good opportunity to really see these leaders in a reasonable setting. And watching them react to tough questions from the other leaders - and 'catcalls' and laughter from the other leaders when one of them tries fibbing - is rather 'realistic' and informative for voters.

Real substance can be found - actual policy arguments can break out. The most notable feature of the program is the fact that the leaders and the parties DO NOT CONTROL THE PROCESS. The production is put on by the media networks themselves and the Leaders are "invited" to attend (they are free to refuse if they like - and threatened with an "empty chair" to represent them).

Quite unlike the US Presidential debates that is.

[Americano]

Few Americans understand (and it's true of the general public in other countries) there's only one political party which periodically changes leadership roles to pacify the public. One of my favorite sayings is 'any lobbyist knows all a change of administration means is changing the names on some of the checks'.

[Michael]

Few Americans understand (and it's true of the general public in other countries) there's only one political party which periodically changes leadership roles to pacify the public. One of my favorite sayings is 'any lobbyist knows all a change of administration means is changing the names on some of the checks'.
Yes, I've said for a long time that US foreign policy never changes - doesn't matter who is in the WH. From JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton, nothing really changed at all. Some changes with GW Bush though - but only in style/process, not really a substantial change in foreign policy.

It really is amazing the amount of 'continuity' from one Administration to the next. Same with spending, pork barrel stuff - same beneficiaries.

[Americano]

Yes, I've said for a long time that US foreign policy never changes - doesn't matter who is in the WH. From JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton, nothing really changed at all. Some changes with GW Bush though - but only in style/process, not really a substantial change in foreign policy.

It really is amazing the amount of 'continuity' from one Administration to the next. Same with spending, pork barrel stuff - same beneficiaries.

The public fear factor motivation has been changed from communistic to Islamic, but the money trail ends up in the same old places. Rather ironic that communist nations (former or whatever, I'm not seeking an academic definition) now finance US foreign policy.

[Michael]

I disagree, I think the Powell endorsement was the last and most important of the election.

I give that he was one of the cheerleaders and an inadvertant propagandist, but I can find no evidence that he was in any way an architect and in fact much evidence that he warned against the whole idea of Iraq and was thereafter cut out of all decision making on the subject.

The point of his endorsement was not for liberals who will never forgive him for your exact reasons but for the much talked about 'independents' and swing voters who don't see the run up to the war as clearly as those against it do.

In 'independant' world I imagine they see Powell as the valiant soldier who followed his leader to the death - just like they are trained to do. And independants probably forgive him. After all he 'honourably served' Amercia in the war he did win and in the long term the Powell doctrine wins over the Bush doctrine. And his contempt for the Bush administration is seen as an admission of being wrong.

Obama got Ted Kennedy when he needed him, Hilary Clinton when he needed her, Warren Buffet when he needed him and now the clincher with the independents - Colin Powell. Brilliant.
An excellent point made - though I'll still freak out if Powell is given any kind of official role. To the dustbin of history is where is career belongs. Being the 'chief enabler' of Bush's War is not something I'll ever forgive him for.

Btw, I might add that my lukewarm opinion of Obama turned strongly and probably permanently negative the day Ted Kennedy endorsed him (the first 'big name' to do so). Obama owes Kennedy huge and I definitely will not like the payback that Kennedy is going to expect as his 'due'.

Of all the Kennedys, I loathe this one the most. I only really liked RFK.

[Michael]

The public fear factor motivation has been changed from communistic to Islamic, but the money trail ends up in the same old places. Rather ironic that communist nations (former or whatever, I'm not seeking an academic definition) now finance US foreign policy.
Well, not to quibble, but neither Japan nor Saudi were ever 'communist.

But your point is well taken. Right now, it is China, Japan and Russia that are holding the largest currency reserves on the planet (and thus the key to economic power). Ironic that the fragile US banking sector is dependent upon the goodwill of China. China and Russia between them could do some serious damage to western economies right now if they were so inclined.

[partofme]

An excellent point made - though I'll still freak out if Powell is given any kind of official role. To the dustbin of history is where is career belongs. Being the 'chief enabler' of Bush's War is not something I'll ever forgive him for.

Btw, I might add that my lukewarm opinion of Obama turned strongly and probably permanently negative the day Ted Kennedy endorsed him (the first 'big name' to do so). Obama owes Kennedy huge and I definitely will not like the payback that Kennedy is going to expect as his 'due'.

Of all the Kennedys, I loathe this one the most. I only really liked RFK.

I wouldn't think he will be in much of a shape for any kind of favor really.

[Americano]

It looks like the choice of Palin for VP on the Republican ticket will go down as one of the more notable strategic political blunders of all time. Polls are showing that concern about Palin's qualifications is voters' top concern about McCain, ahead of every other issue in the election.

[Michael]

It looks like the choice of Palin for VP on the Republican ticket will go down as one of the more notable strategic political blunders of all time. Polls are showing that concern about Palin's qualifications is voters' top concern about McCain, ahead of every other issue in the election.
Yes, the Republican party is stuck between a rock and a hard place on this issue.

The more any given candidate appeals to the 'evangelical right wing', the more that candidate is considered to be pretty much toxic to the rest of the electorate.

It seems to me that the Republicans can only bridge this gap when they have a candidate that has relatively good secular credentials and voter appeal - and just happens to be a right-wing evangelical (like Reagan or GW Bush).

Choosing a candidate on the basis of evangelical appeal is apparently electoral suicide (as the Palin pick is turning out to be). Palin has no real credentials other than being attractive to rightwing evangelicals.

[partofme]

Yes, the Republican party is stuck between a rock and a hard place on this issue.

The more any given candidate appeals to the 'evangelical right wing', the more that candidate is considered to be pretty much toxic to the rest of the electorate.

It seems to me that the Republicans can only bridge this gap when they have a candidate that has relatively good secular credentials and voter appeal - and just happens to be a right-wing evangelical (like Reagan or GW Bush).

Choosing a candidate on the basis of evangelical appeal is apparently electoral suicide (as the Palin pick is turning out to be). Palin has no real credentials other than being attractive to rightwing evangelicals.

You are quite right. She was very popular until her botched interviews on CBS and ABC. I think that if she was more prepared and had spent a few more years as governor she would have been very effective. I just hope she has damaged herself enough to never be able to improve her reputation.

[Americano]

You are quite right. She was very popular until her botched interviews on CBS and ABC. I think that if she was more prepared and had spent a few more years as governor she would have been very effective. I just hope she has damaged herself enough to never be able to improve her reputation.

I second that thought. Here's an article on how she used (Alaska) public funds to fly her children around and lodge them in hotels:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jwb6ekOiK0T9yFvw_WURcrdPI65QD93V69Q00

You'll enjoy some of the arrogance and expense report alteration stories.

[partofme]

You know I hate it when people think that elections are over before the votes have been made and counted so I try to avoid any predictions at all. But I must say that every single day this looks like it's only moving further into Obama's favor.

[Donkey]

You know I hate it when people think that elections are over before the votes have been made and counted so I try to avoid any predictions at all. But I must say that every single day this looks like it's only moving further into Obama's favor.
Indeed.

Whenever I hear McCain talking about how it's moving in his favor all I can think of is this guy.

http://writingcompany.blogs.com/this_isnt_writing_its_typ/images/baghdad_bob_1.jpg

[Americano]

When McCain speaks this guy also comes to mind:

[partofme]

Every day I look to see if there is some revelation in the news about the race. Only something really big could shake things up now. It seems that whenever something to become breaking news it is in Obama's favor. Yesterday it was Ted Stevens being convicted on seven felony charges and two people planning to assassinate Obama. I don't think those guys would have gotten far but it does create a backlash against that sort of hatred.

[Michael]

Osama's is way overdue for his 'campaign ad' for McCain. That could shake things up a bit...

Osama's campaign ad for Bush worked very well in the closing days of the 2004 campaign.

[SMadsen]

When McCain speaks this guy also comes to mind:
Yet, he was given a second term.

Every day I look to see if there is some revelation in the news about the race. Only something really big could shake things up now. It seems that whenever something to become breaking news it is in Obama's favor. Yesterday it was Ted Stevens being convicted on seven felony charges and two people planning to assassinate Obama. I don't think those guys would have gotten far but it does create a backlash against that sort of hatred.
After the newly revealed rightwing madman plan there seems to be a new focus in the news on the Bradley effect, where voters will lie about their own racist tendencies, thus making it impossible to poll the importance of racial issues before the actual votes roll in. But then, as a newspaper over here quotes Michael A. Cohen from The New America Foundation: "Those who have racial issues wouldn't ever dream of voting on a Democrat anyway."

[Michael]

Yet, he was given a second term.
Damn good point.

After the newly revealed rightwing madman plan there seems to be a new focus in the news on the Bradley effect, where voters will lie about their own racist tendencies, thus making it impossible to poll the importance of racial issues before the actual votes roll in. But then, as a newspaper over here quotes Michael A. Cohen from The New America Foundation: "Those who have racial issues wouldn't ever dream of voting on a Democrat anyway."
That's true.

However, the Democratic party has a very long history of being the party of the racist vote. They've lost that reputation to the Republicans, but this is a fairly recent shift. I'm sure there are more than a few still in the Democratic party.

One hopes that the size of the lead that Obama has will be sufficient to offset the fact that his actual vote totals are likely to be less than presently forcasted by present polling.

In other words, I have no reason to believe that the "Bradley effect" is no longer present.

[Donkey]

I agree, but I also suspect that there are other polling errors that could work in Obama's favor. Land lines are becoming increasingly irrelevant, and the biggest chunk of voters who rely solely on cell phones is young voters. We simply can't get picked up in polls that call land lines. Assuming we get out and vote (and a lot of us already have), we could actually give Obama more of a boost than the polls allow for.

[partofme]

I agree, but I also suspect that there are other polling errors that could work in Obama's favor. Land lines are becoming increasingly irrelevant, and the biggest chunk of voters who rely solely on cell phones is young voters. We simply can't get picked up in polls that call land lines. Assuming we get out and vote (and a lot of us already have), we could actually give Obama more of a boost than the polls allow for.

While I agree that the youth vote will be higher than normal this year I don't think it is going to be as big as people are saying. I remember hearing the same thing in 2004. I'm hoping they do but I would not count on it.

[Michael]

While I agree that the youth vote will be higher than normal this year I don't think it is going to be as big as people are saying. I remember hearing the same thing in 2004. I'm hoping they do but I would not count on it.
Yes, it does get a bit tiresome listening to predictions of record "youth vote turnout" prior to EVERY US election.

Bottom line is that youthful voters have the lowest voter turnout rate of all demographic groups - consistently. Even 'record' turnout for this group still puts them at the bottom of the list of 'turnout' percentages of eligible voters (such as the 2004 example).

Indeed, I'd venture to say that the biggest 'Bradley Effect' is with youth voters saying they intend to vote and then don't.

[partofme]

Yes, it does get a bit tiresome listening to predictions of record "youth vote turnout" prior to EVERY US election.

Bottom line is that youthful voters have the lowest voter turnout rate of all demographic groups - consistently. Even 'record' turnout for this group still puts them at the bottom of the list of 'turnout' percentages of eligible voters (such as the 2004 example).

Indeed, I'd venture to say that the biggest 'Bradley Effect' is with youth voters saying they intend to vote and then don't.

I could see that. Especially if they see Obama as being way ahead anyway.

[Michael]

As expected, The Economist has endorsed Obama.

And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.

The Economist (http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?source=most_commented&story_id=12516666)

Not likely to sway many voters, but still, this ought to bring a smile to Obama's face - and should go a long way to dispel rumors that Obama is some kind of radical socialist or marxist.

[Americano]

As expected, The Economist has endorsed Obama.



The Economist (http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?source=most_commented&story_id=12516666)

Not likely to sway many voters, but still, this ought to bring a smile to Obama's face - and should go a long way to dispel rumors that Obama is some kind of radical socialist or marxist.

That article does trash the Bush Administration and McSame's campaign. (justifiably).

[Michael]

That article does trash the Bush Administration and McSame's campaign. (justifiably).
Rightly so.

The Economist would be rather "moderate Republican" in general preference. They only endorse the Democratic candidate if the Republicans seriously piss them off (like Bush has done - and McCain is McSame).

As the article notes, this election could have been entirely different if we had the McCain circa 2000 running.

[Americano]

Rightly so.

The Economist would be rather "moderate Republican" in general preference. They only endorse the Democratic candidate if the Republicans seriously piss them off (like Bush has done - and McCain is McSame).

As the article notes, this election could have been entirely different if we had the McCain circa 2000 running.

And he would have fooled us when the real McCain came out after the election? You're saying he should have used the Bush format; lie about everything.

[Michael]

And he would have fooled us when the real McCain came out after the election? You're saying he should have used the Bush format; lie about everything.
Actually, I don't think so. McCain really does have fairly impressive and long 'bipartisan' history in the Senate and the conservatives have always hated him for that. I really believe that's the true McCain style (as much as he has one).

It is pretty clear that McCain's run in 2008 has been very un-McCain-like. McCain is spouting things now that he's never supported before. He was always anti-Bush and now has become the Bush-clone. That's a shift McCain took because he obviously figured it was his best bet to get to the Whitehouse. That plan obviously didn't work out so well.

But if McCain had run as the actual bipartisan 'maverick' that he's stood for so long and actually ran 'against' Bush, he could have been much more powerful campaigner. But of course, McCain was in a catch-22 position there. If he did so, the religious right and the hard-line conservatives would have hated him even more, but he would have probably won the 'independent' vote and the rightwingers got no where else to go anyway. Would have been a big problem for fundraising though. Independents don't donate. Only the hardcore partisans do that. This is why McCain was 'forced' to become 'McSame' for the election.

[Americano]

Actually, I don't think so. McCain really does have fairly impressive and long 'bipartisan' history in the Senate and the conservatives have always hated him for that. I really believe that's the true McCain style (as much as he has one).

It is pretty clear that McCain's run in 2008 has been very un-McCain-like. McCain is spouting things now that he's never supported before. He was always anti-Bush and now has become the Bush-clone. That's a shift McCain took because he obviously figured it was his best bet to get to the Whitehouse. That plan obviously didn't work out so well.

But if McCain had run as the actual bipartisan 'maverick' that he's stood for so long and actually ran 'against' Bush, he could have been much more powerful campaigner. But of course, McCain was in a catch-22 position there. If he did so, the religious right and the hard-line conservatives would have hated him even more, but he would have probably won the 'independent' vote and the rightwingers got no where else to go anyway. Would have been a big problem for fundraising though. Independents don't donate. Only the hardcore partisans do that. This is why McCain was 'forced' to become 'McSame' for the election.

I see it as the money coming from different sources and major party politicians are all whores. I've met some whom I honestly felt were so drunk with party dogma there was little trace of the actual individual even off the record.

[partofme]

Actually, I don't think so. McCain really does have fairly impressive and long 'bipartisan' history in the Senate and the conservatives have always hated him for that. I really believe that's the true McCain style (as much as he has one).

It is pretty clear that McCain's run in 2008 has been very un-McCain-like. McCain is spouting things now that he's never supported before. He was always anti-Bush and now has become the Bush-clone. That's a shift McCain took because he obviously figured it was his best bet to get to the Whitehouse. That plan obviously didn't work out so well.

But if McCain had run as the actual bipartisan 'maverick' that he's stood for so long and actually ran 'against' Bush, he could have been much more powerful campaigner. But of course, McCain was in a catch-22 position there. If he did so, the religious right and the hard-line conservatives would have hated him even more, but he would have probably won the 'independent' vote and the rightwingers got no where else to go anyway. Would have been a big problem for fundraising though. Independents don't donate. Only the hardcore partisans do that. This is why McCain was 'forced' to become 'McSame' for the election.

That is one reason I just couldn't consider voting for him. It would be rewarding him for going towards the right and encourage future G.O.P. candidates to do the same. That and Sarah Palin.

[Michael]

I see it as the money coming from different sources and major party politicians are all whores. I've met some whom I honestly felt were so drunk with party dogma there was little trace of the actual individual even off the record.
Yes, that's true.

But McCain does indeed have a very long history of bucking Republican party dogma. That's the point about "McCain the maverick" (and why conservatives have traditionally disliked him).

The present McCain is running entirely as 'McSame' meaning he has adopted all the Bush-Republican sacred cows (which is why he's losing the election).

[Americano]

Yes, that's true.

But McCain does indeed have a very long history of bucking Republican party dogma. That's the point about "McCain the maverick" (and why conservatives have traditionally disliked him).

The present McCain is running entirely as 'McSame' meaning he has adopted all the Bush-Republican sacred cows (which is why he's losing the election).

I don't think there's any doubt about Obama's campaign platform of change being easy to sell after eight years of the Bush Administration. At this late stage McCain and Palin are even beating the defense drum to a public currently 75% against and sick of the Iraq War, not what I'd define as astute campaign strategy.

[Michael]

I don't think there's any doubt about Obama's campaign platform of change being easy to sell after eight years of the Bush Administration. At this late stage McCain and Palin are even beating the defense drum to a public currently 75% against and sick of the Iraq War, not what I'd define as astute campaign strategy.
The point I'm making is that McCain had no choice but to run this type of campaign (as McSame).

The reason is because the Republican party sacred cows - endless war, endless tax cuts, unlimited deregulation of financial markets and social conservative religious posturing.

If McCain didn't toe that party line, that means no big money support at all. And running a national presidential campaign on a shoestring budget is a guarenteed loss right from the start.

Ergo, McCain had no choice but to tack hard to the right and bow before the Republican party sacred cows. There is roughly 'zero' funding available to run as a 'center-right-maverick', despite the fact that this position is clearly more democratically popular than the Republican party line. That's the catch-22 McCain faced. It is a problem of the Republican 'brand' right now. Anyone running on the Republican platform is going to lose a national election right now - doesn't matter what their name is.

McCain could have run as a 'center-right-maverick' and challenged Obama on the "change" theme and I think McCain would have had more credibility (and success) than Obama in delivering change to Washington - given that McCain has bucked his party line many times - Obama never has and likely never will. McCain could have taken that "change" label and used it against Obama. But McCain could never do that once he sold his soul to the Republican party funding machine. For them, he must be "McSame" and that kills the whole 'change' motif.

[Americano]

The point I'm making is that McCain had no choice but to run this type of campaign (as McSame).

The reason is because the Republican party sacred cows - endless war, endless tax cuts, unlimited deregulation of financial markets and social conservative religious posturing.

If McCain didn't toe that party line, that means no big money support at all. And running a national presidential campaign on a shoestring budget is a guarenteed loss right from the start.

Ergo, McCain had no choice but to tack hard to the right and bow before the Republican party sacred cows. There is roughly 'zero' funding available to run as a 'center-right-maverick', despite the fact that this position is clearly more democratically popular than the Republican party line. That's the catch-22 McCain faced. It is a problem of the Republican 'brand' right now. Anyone running on the Republican platform is going to lose a national election right now - doesn't matter what their name is.

McCain could have run as a 'center-right-maverick' and challenged Obama on the "change" theme and I think McCain would have had more credibility (and success) than Obama in delivering change to Washington - given that McCain has bucked his party line many times - Obama never has and likely never will. McCain could have taken that "change" label and used it against Obama. But McCain could never do that once he sold his soul to the Republican party funding machine. For them, he must be "McSame" and that kills the whole 'change' motif.

I'm partially in agreement with you. The Republican Party (what I consider the 'new' Republican Party) backed itself into several corners during the past three decades, the past eight-years being the most extreme, and change was a no-brainer platform for the Democrats.

I still think that regardless of his senatorial voting record or past position points McCain has ever had any credibility beyond what his backers desired to meet their goals. As you well know US political representation within the two major segments of the US one-party system is carefully chosen by the back room boys to represent the interests of their masters and campaign funds allocated accordingly. McCain merely moved his act to a new stage with different and more powerful backers. His performance script changed to meet the demands of the new backers. Like most party dogs, he can and will play any role the money desires.

[partofme]

What do you guys think would happen if McCain was to win and then be a moderate leader and much more like the old John McCain. Would the republican party still give him full support in 2012 if that was the case?

[Greendruid]

Hypothetical predictions on this are tough. I can't imagine how many directions the pressure comes from to make particular decisions when you're President of the United States. Just hearing Johnson's tapes from the movie "Fog of War" clearly demonstrated how tough of a job that position is as a person. There's probably a point at which one can reasonably weigh the situation and, depending on the balance in the House and Senate, make decisions on one's conscience rather than toe the party line. Gorbachev rings a few bells here to use an international example. Can't think of an American President in this context to be honest, but I'm sure the situation has presented itself in the past.

I think that McCain made a lot of sense for a lot of Americans as an independent in 2000. Alas, there's just no money for your popularity contest style of politics as an independent. :shrug:

[Americano]

And there is his age.

[Greendruid]

Ah, very good point! Do you think that will contribute to him being a stick in the mud and just do what he's told or do you think that will cause him to say "Fuck it!" and decide things on his conscience? I find the latter of the two to be more true of older people in general. I know that's what I'm going to be like when I'm in my 70s! Or do you just think he'd never run again because of his age?

[Americano]

Ah, very good point! Do you think that will contribute to him being a stick in the mud and just do what he's told or do you think that will cause him to say "Fuck it!" and decide things on his conscience? I find the latter of the two to be more true of older people in general. I know that's what I'm going to be like when I'm in my 70s! Or do you just think he'd never run again because of his age?

His obvious lack of conscience would be the danger. This is the same person who traded his disabled wife in on a newer, richer model and switched his political style for national campaign support.

[Dominick]

Whomever wins, there'll be a loser apart from the losing candidate, viz. the perception of the States outside the North American continent. If McCain wins there'll be no improvement for obvious reasons. But it's no better if Obama wins. And that's because the expectations are so immensely high everywhere that it's quite impossible for him to rise up to them.

And that's even if he would desire such a thing because after all he's going to be an American type president and not a European type or South American type or whatever. The way European and some other media and politicians are presently raving about Obama would oblige him to become almost messianic to live up to the expectations.

People seem to think that the mere fact of having Obama in office will compel Al Quaeda (in whichever definition suits your fancy) to collectively jump in the Persian Gulf, will compel the Taliban to assume Western values, will make the Palestinians and Israelis to make love to each other instead of war, and so on.

I reckon it'll be a rude return to reality no matter what Obama does.
We no longer have elections, we have media hypes.

[Sucre]

My impressions is that the hopes in the States too are disproportionate. Under the present circumstances, there is little ANY candidate will be able to do in the next four years EXCEPT make things worse.

I feel for Obama, likely to win, but who will be facing a tough time during his mandate - if he does not get assassinated before it ends !

[Michael]

Whomever wins, there'll be a loser apart from the losing candidate, viz. the perception of the States outside the North American continent. If McCain wins there'll be no improvement for obvious reasons. But it's no better if Obama wins. And that's because the expectations are so immensely high everywhere that it's quite impossible for him to rise up to them.

And that's even if he would desire such a thing because after all he's going to be an American type president and not a European type or South American type or whatever. The way European and some other media and politicians are presently raving about Obama would oblige him to become almost messianic to live up to the expectations.

People seem to think that the mere fact of having Obama in office will compel Al Quaeda (in whichever definition suits your fancy) to collectively jump in the Persian Gulf, will compel the Taliban to assume Western values, will make the Palestinians and Israelis to make love to each other instead of war, and so on.

I reckon it'll be a rude return to reality no matter what Obama does.
We no longer have elections, we have media hypes.

My impressions is that the hopes in the States too are disproportionate. Under the present circumstances, there is little ANY candidate will be able to do in the next four years EXCEPT make things worse.

I feel for Obama, likely to win, but who will be facing a tough time during his mandate - if he does not get assassinated before it ends !

Agreed. Obama is in for a tough term and his supporters (Euros even more than Democrats) have some mighty unreasonable expectations for him.

With Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, foreign policy is going to be tough. With a recession and the financial crisis and an exploding deficit, the next administration will have to fight some big budget battles. And there's nothing in Obama's past record that shows him willing to 'get in front' of any controversial issue. He's always shied from controversy and sought the safe route.

[Americano]

I don't see any safe routes for quite some time.

[Michael]

I don't see any safe routes for quite some time.
Indeed, even a universal healthcare initiative - six months ago, I would have said that was going to be a relatively easy battle. However, with the present fiscal-budget problems, even that 'signature' issue is now going to be a big fight on the basis of "we can't afford a new social program right now" argument.

[Americano]

Indeed, even a universal healthcare initiative - six months ago, I would have said that was going to be a relatively easy battle. However, with the present fiscal-budget problems, even that 'signature' issue is now going to be a big fight on the basis of "we can't afford a new social program right now" argument.

We're looking at trillion dollar plus annual spending deficits. The currency won't take too many years of that. Hopefully military spending will be slashed
(when all the allocations to other budgets and deficits are included it now consumes around 40% of federal spending) but without a foreign policy correction that's probably a fantasy.

[Michael]

We're looking at trillion dollar plus annual spending deficits. The currency won't take too many years of that. Hopefully military spending will be slashed
(when all the allocations to other budgets and deficits are included it now consumes around 40% of federal spending) but without a foreign policy correction that's probably a fantasy.
Rumor has it that the Pentagon is planning to approach the new Administration on February 1st with a request for a major budget increase (over and above the already appoved budget increase for Fiscal 2009).

You can be sure that will be a big 'budget' fight to start things off with since the 'MIC' will be in full lying-lobby mode to support it.

[Americano]

Whomever is elected is faced with the problem of a steeply declining economy and a GDP that's now over 20% driven by government spending. The fear factor (military spending) is a no-brainer for more federal spending as the general public doesn't understand (or want to admit) US foreign policy is what promotes that fear. It's a perpetual squirrel cage spinning faster and faster as the MIC directs the country, including its foreign policy.

[Michael]

Outside of the US, subsidies for private industry are called just that and usually fall under the label of "industrial policy" and are brutally attacked by one's trading partners as an unfair trading advantage.

In the US, they just call it "defense policy".

[Americano]

Outside of the US, subsidies for private industry are called just that and usually fall under the label of "industrial policy" and are brutally attacked by one's trading partners as an unfair trading advantage.

In the US, they just call it "defense policy".

Many nations, most recently the USSR, discovered colonialism wasn't much fun when it had to be militarily enforced. The US seems to be having problems in admitting the creation of deep, negative economic consequences when a nation engages in a major war and walks away with no victory or plunder. And then attempts to maintain a prolonged war time standard of living without that plunder while servicing the incurred debt.

Wasn't it long-term drought in the tax-paying conquered lands that screwed-up Rome's cash flow leading to not being able to pay the Legions? Gotta have that plunder.