Why would I want to learn to catch my own if you're just going to give them to me? :)

How about the Right beleives that government is a necessary evil, and the Left believes that government is a necessary positive.

I think for every snappy saying you have to distinguish "right" as pre- or post- Bush.

And some of us on the right have figured out that trying to teach some people to fish is like trying to teach a pig to read: it does you no good at all & tends to annoy the pig.

actually my favorite quote along these lines is from PJ O Rourke:

"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn.
The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

I think this has become even more relevant post-Bush.

Great quote from a great book.

I think the problem that we have with education in this country is not how much we spend on it. Memphis City Schools spend a lot more money per student than Shelby County Schools do, but who has the higher test scores and who has the better education? Those that went to Shelby County Schools.

The problem with teaching is how do you measure results and how do you measure the effectiveness of the teacher? If you have a teacher that has a bunch of behind the curve students and gets then fractionally behind where they should be, that is something that should be commended. However, that doesn't happen. Conversely, if a teacher has a bunch of standouts, and the kids wind up closer to the standard when she is done with them, that is a poor teaching job. Unfortunately, it is impossible to measure that. A simple grade or test does not adequately measure teaching performance. But what will?

I will say this, there is plenty o problims with publik edumacation, but mure monee for it izn't the problim.

Could this become a much bigger problem?

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5326078&page=1

It is already a very big problem in a lot of states.

http://www.accesshollywood.com/artic...aria-menounos/

Obama, wife and kids do Access Hollywood.

Sometimes I don't know what planet you have been living on. Is 2000 that long ago that you couldn't not remember the downturn and .com busts of 2000?

Do you have any idea what you are saying when you say, "far, far right"? I guess if one positions himself on the far, far left, then a moderate would look far right.

flere: I will respond to your thoughtful post later. I just had to get a knee-jerk reaction out of my system.

Sure, they are both humanistic, but with the right wing the heavy emphasis is towards folks living (and born) on your fair shores.

I don't disagree about your comment re: left and right wanting power. Just another reason of many why I'd never call myself either.

I'm living on the planet where Clinton had a 65% approval rating his last year in office. My whole point is Gore should have used him more, because he was still popular. That's hardly a controversial point.


Not sure what to do for you if you can't understand what I was saying. Never said Bush wasn't a moderate. I said he had to go to the right because of the pressure Buchanan applied during the primary. This distraction set him back a little bit. I'm surprised you took such a strong reaction to this, because it wasn't even a criticism of Bush.

dola

According to CNN Exit poll in 2000, Clinton had a 57% favorable rating and 65% of voters thought the US was on the right track.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/res...ex.epolls.html

I would say that weariness is the same thing as fatigue. A change usually results from people that are tired of something.


He did lose interest in campaigning, that much was clear. Perhaps he was weary of typical political BS, both in Washington and on the campaign.


I agree. The common adjective applied to Gore at the time was 'wooden'.


I disagree about the first part. Different segments have always been "scared and angry" about certain politicians or parties, just different degrees. You should have been around in 1968. Talk about scared and angry - makes today looks like a sunday school potluck. People were that way, to varying degrees, with Carter, Reagan, Bush1 and Clinton. And certain people will be that way with McCain or Obama. Most partisans cannot be objective - it always something fundamental that riles up the hatred or contempt. It's either hatred for the Religious Right or Atheist Left (other people's words, not mine), or color of skin or demographics or something. It is taken out on politicians belonging to the opposition.

I agree with the second part.


I was going to mention the generation aspect but only in specifics. You can't say that it was simply boomers vs the oldies. I remember reading some of the independent press from the Bay Area when I was interested in learning more about the anti-war/peace&love movements of the 60s. What was said specifically that Clinton is "one of us". "Us" not meaning boomers but "anti-war, draft dodger". He was the golden child to finalize the 60s revolution in obtaining the powerful position in the world. I also recall that this same group soured on him very early on when he advocated positions all over the spectrum.

Apart from that, Clinton did have the appeal to independents and moderates (along with Perot). I know a number of long-time Rep voters voting for Clinton because they wanted change or 'breath of fresh air". That didn't last long either when he went to positions further left of his supposed centrism (gays in military and some of his Cabinet appointees).

This perhaps played a part in the fatigue, weariness or whatever voters felt just after 22 months when the 1994 election came around.


Both candidates have two perceived weaknesses: Obama - black and liberal; McCain - old and Republican. (Don't chide me for these labels, all four will be an issue in the campaign, whether they should or not.) Obama is getting a boost (how much, hard to say), just like Clinton got a boost. But in the end, it is not going to come down to issues or age, just likeability and/or charisma.

Yes, I know that very well. I simply took issue with "a strong economic situation", which we did not have in 2000.


My reaction had nothing to do with Bush (which you know I have no love for, nor the neo-cons), but the erroneous phrase of "far, far right" in general. Whether Bush had to go right of Buchanan (whatever that mean since it's hard to pin down Buchanan on the spectrum) or whether Bush was there all along, I don't know. No, my reaction was simply that even a hardcore neo-con would not be considered far right, when put in perspective of true single-line political/cultural spectrum.

Just a quick drive-by observation that I genuinely believe that is worth noting on this point.

If I got a phone survey today, I'd answer/agree that we're heading in the wrong direction. But that's not indicative of what direction I think we should be heading.

Just a point that seemed worth making.

Whether we had one or not doesn't really matter. The public obviously thought we did, and they certainly weren't "weary" of the incumbent, which is the point that I was responding to.


Well, I guess it depends on what you consider "far, far" right, which would be a really silly exercise. It just depends on how you're looking at the scale. My whole point is that He had to move away from the center, and it hampered his re-election prospects.

I was a bit surprised that you took such an antagonistic tone in responding to my post, because I wasn't making some leftist political argument. I was simply stating what happened in the 1992 and 2000 elections.

Me too, except I want to go in a direction that neither candidates, nor those on the red/blue spectrum are advocating.

Don't know why either, it was just one of those things.

Fair enough. But I think you'll agree that this is perhaps the most unsettled electorate since 1968. Maybe 1980 gets close.

Since you were there, do you see parallels between RFK (hope, change) and Nixon (experienced, safe)?


I'm not, and it never is. But as you note, the Boomer cohort helped move Clinton to victory in, I think, a large part because he was a Boomer and someone with whom they could identify.


1992 and 1994 strike me as two elections where modern-day partisanship really came of age. The Senate in which I served an internship in 1992 seems very different from the Senate as it is described today. Heck, I even remember having a very cordial conversation with Orrin Hatch & Kay Bailey Hutchinson, both of whom praised my boss at the time, George Mitchell.


Yep. Isn't this pretty much always the way, though?


Oh, I agree absolutely. I didn't mean to suggest that this 80% agrees on a particular direction. But if such a large part of the electorate feels we're going in the wrong direction, that has to be a big factor in how the campaigns proceed.

We've been through this: it's because you're old & cranky. :p

Right on cue, we have this from the guy at electoral-vote.com:

What's going on here? Why did the Dems (and Obama) vote for this in such large numbers?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080710/...t_surveillance

I thought they were against this (as are most Americans)?

My first two guesses would be that either 1) most Americans aren't against it and the didn't want the backlash, or 2) voting against it would turn the upcoming election into a fight on whether or not Democrats want the terrorists to take over the country...more than it already is.

Nobody wants to be considered soft on terrorism? It seems like this is still a chief concern among voters.

Or, alternately, they were against it when a Republican was President, but now that it seems likely that a Democrat will be sworn in next January, they are for it.

Damn straight.

I'm glad to see that outcome though. What I don't want to see in this election in shouts of "fear mongering!" anytime anyone brings up national security. I think if everyone's thinking reasonably and Bush is out of the picture and can't polarize us, there will be more agreement than we'd think.

This is it, I think. Plus that telecon lobbying money.

If you have some time, read Glenn Greenwald's coverage of this on his blog.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

He's a screaming lefty, but he made some solid points on this one. He argues that Democrats cave on issues like this because they don't want to be painted as "weak" by Republicans. Of course, by constantly caving in they do get called "weak", and rightfully so.

But long story short, you can't vote "no" on an anti-terror bill in an election year. The Dems just don't trust the American people to understand the bill and what it means, so they have to go along with it.

So what happens next year when the price of oil gets reduced to $70 and the stock market takes off? Will McCain or Obama take the credit for a boom when they had nothing to do with it?

Probably whichever of them wins. No one would believe the loser if they tried to take credit for it.

Any reason to believe that the price of something that is in diminishing supply and increasing demand is going to magically be cut in half within the next year?

That's pretty funny. The price of oil isn't going anywhere but up, baby!!!!!!!

Did you see T. Boone Pickens energy plan that he is putting out? Quite interesting.

Cut in half, maybe not, but I believe it will drop quite a bit after the election.

Given that much of the run-up are speculator-driven (and fear-driven), the 'normal' price for oil should be about $80-$85 according to an energy supply expert I talk to. Plus, I suscribe to the Law of Expected Change where nothing will ever remain the same over a period of time and things will change all on its own regardless of attempts affect outcomes.

It was one of those crazy cases where the merits of the compromise bill actually caused people to vote for it, despite the hyperbole still coming out of the ACLU and other groups that remained opposed.

Essentially, the President and Republicans conceded on provisions that will require a warrant to be issued before any surveillance of US persons can be done, whether those persons are located domestically or overseas. They also agreed to some pretty stringent oversight provisions to ensure that the methods used by federal law enforcement and the intelligence community comply with the Fourth Amendment. So, the Dems won on the Constitutional stuff. Yay team.

The GOP won on telecom immunity. If telecoms can produce in court documentation from the Department of Justice given to them at the time all this stuff happened where the DOJ gives them an official opinion that what they were being asked to do was legal, the civil lawsuits against them can be dismissed. Although no documents such as these have been leaked or been confirmed to exist, most folks think that something official was given by DOJ to the telecoms.

A number of Dems voted against the bill because they hated giving up on immunity. Others, like Senator Obama, voted for it because they felt that the framework set up by the bill was good and would prevent future Administrations from pulling the same shenanigans as this one did.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1157621

For what little it is worth, I think that if the courts were to ever prevent John McCain from being sworn in as President based on this hyper-technicality, it would be horrible. Which does not stop the question from being interesting. But it represents one of those areas where ivory-tower academic law needs to differ from the real world.

Eight years after Bush v. Gore, you simply cannot have the Supreme Court taking center stage in another presidental election.

There's already been a unanimous Senate resolution that he's a natural-born citizen, and the Constitution gives Congress the right to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." It won't be an issue. No "ivory-tower academic law" thinks that McCain doesn't qualify under the constitution.

Well, at least we know what the first lawsuit against McCain will be if he wins the election.... :D

Catching up a little:

1. I am glad to see the buzz about Sam Nunn being a potential VP. He has always been one of my favorites, for a politician.

2. McCain and now, Nunn, need to look at a recent map of Europe more.

3. Obama had the head of Freddy Mac (or was it the other one) as his VP chair before being ousted for some reason. Do you think this was pre-emptive knowing the scandals that are rocking both mortgage giants? Sounds like Obama being Big Mortgage could play like McCain being ex-Big S&L. The people with lots of money are corrupt and it's a shame that they have too much say in politics.

4. So far the spending has been about equal but what's interesting is the $1m+ Obama is putting into each into GA, VA and NC and $3m+ in FL.

5. Congressional job approval hits new low but what's interesting is that the declining poll numbers can be attributed to sliding support for Democrats: Over the past month, their support has slid from 23 percent approval in June to 11 percent in July. During that time, the Republican Party’s approval rating has risen, from 15 percent in June to 19 percent in July. Frankly, I think those job approval numbers are way too high. Until we wake up to the follies of Congress, it won't matter who is President, Congress will continue to do their crap.

6. I am sick of the same tired rhetoric of politicians quipping "same tired rhetoric". Oh wait... Seriously, that is one of the most stupidest response to something that a politician can say. That is sound bite politics at its worse.

7. It's still very early but there are some nicely done ads out already, particularly from MoveOn and the Obama national security. The Planned Parenthood one was stupid, imo. Stupid response to a stupid McCain moment.

Guys, am I missing something here? Another thread perhaps? No mention of Jesse Jackson's "nuts" (I assume this forum is not too puritanical to mention that), no mention of Gramm's "whining" or "mental recession" and no mention of the New Yorker's cartoon of Obama and his wife as muslim and terrorist. None of it of any interest to this thread?

Yeah. I think that they could have done a much better job attacking that. It was almost like they said "We are Planned Parenthood; we need to make an ad out of this," and just did it without really trying to make a good ad out of it.

June Fundraising:

Obama: $52 million
McCain: $22 million


I think there might be some election fatigue going on at FOFC currently.

I'm glad to see Gramm's "whining" getting some play in the press. Obama followed-up by pointing out that Gramm's comment of a "mental recession", combined with McCain earlier admitting that most of his economic proposals for this summer were mainly "psychological" in manner means that neither really understand the pain people are going through this year.

I mean sure, Obama's fairly well-off now, but it wasn't too long ago that he was another guy who paid his bills, paid off his credit card, and pumped his own gas. McCain hasn't done any of this since at least as far back as when he married Cindy.

I have mixed feelings on the New Yorker cartoon. On one hand, I see what they were trying to do, but I'm not sure if you can effectively satirize something (in this case, the right wing smear machine) without portraying them in some way. On the other hand, a bunch of people have pointed out that if the cartoon reinforces some misguided notions about Obama, those people probably weren't going to vote for him anyway.

Dola - we talk a lot about presidential candidates having political experience, but why don't we talk more about candidates having experience in the private (or even non-profit) sector?

You mean like Bush2? As much as I detest politicians and politics in general, the Executive Branch is purely a political environment, all about playing the game with Congress, with the American people and on the world stage. They can bring in outsiders for energy, economics, etc. but the president and his cronies must know how to play to get what they want. And to lead, which includes managing perceptions in saying the right thing at the right time while behind the scenes, managing a constantly shifting coalition. Lincoln, FDR, LBJ and Reagan showed us that. As president, you don't want to be taken advantage of because the worst thing that could happen is a dominate Congress.

To bring it back to your angling point, Reagan was touted to be an "outsider", a "CEO President" if you will but in reality, he and his administration knews how to play the beltway games very well. Bush2 tried to emulate that but failed.

Wasn't that practically the entire basis for Clinton's candidacy? I think we've talked quite enough about that.

Well, I was thinking more of Eisenhower, who viewed himself not as a legislator, but as a manager/executive, who kept the country running and implemented the legislation passed by Congress.

Now I am confused. You are a libertarian. Seems to me you should be very against a strong federal executive and all for a strong Congress. Congress is a slow deliberative body. The President is one person who can actually get things done. A strong President vis a vis Congress means WAY more federal intervention in our lives.

The best situation, of course, is a Congress, President, and Judiciary that are in balance. In that situation, things coming out of the fed tend to take the longest and have some sort of a broad mandate supporting them (and, as an added bonus, are constitutional).

It seems that if one wants the most possible federal involvement in our day to day lives, then one wants a strong president and a neutered Congress and Supreme Court. In that case, anything from wiretaps, to federal involvement in family, tort, and property law, to tax increases can be zipped through without any occasion for anyone to object.

Or, now that I re-read your message, did you actually mean that the best thing for the President is to be a strong political player. Not the best thing for the Country?

Just a quick drive-by thought here.

At this stage of the game, I can't say I'm sure how much those ads would be meant to influence voters in the Presidential race vs meant to try to generate more contributors in those states (by showing the appearance of an effort) vs an effort to help other down ballot candidates by at least trying to create the impression that the state(s) are in play.

Not saying they are, just saying that I'm not sure they aren't.

Well, VA is definitely in play.

But otherwise I think the intent is 45% to make McCain play some defense in states where he shouldn't have to, 45% to help downballot races and 10% "just in case" the state comes into play, for whatever reason.

We've been getting a heavy dose of ads from both candidates over the last couple of weeks in Missouri. It's like a non-stop political infomercial from 5:00 PM through 10:30 PM on the big networks. I'm guessing they won't stop until the first Tuesday in November.

FWIW, I agree.

I can't think VA is all that surprising, especially given the population growth (and its progressive-leaning demographic bent up north).

What really shocks me are some of the states also in play which really shouldn't be. Like Montana.

For discussion, here are 538's current projections, sorted by likelihood of Obama victory (likelihood of McCain victory can be inferred):

State EV Chance of Obama Victory
Vermont 3 100%
DC 3 100%
Rhode Island 4 99%
Hawaii 4 99%
Connecticut 7 98%
California 55 98%
Maine 4 97%
New York 31 97%
Maryland 10 96%
Massachusetts 12 95%
Illinois 21 95%
Minnesota 10 94%
Washington 11 94%
Oregon 7 89%
Wisconsin 10 88%
Delaware 3 87%
New Jersey 15 86%
Iowa 7 81%
Pennsylvania 21 79%
New Hampshire 4 76%
New Mexico 5 74%
Michigan 17 66%
Colorado 9 65%
Ohio 20 62%
Virginia 13 49%
Nevada 5 40%
Montana 3 40%
Missouri 11 31%
Indiana 11 31%
Florida 27 28%
North Carolina 15 25%
North Dakota 3 24%
South Dakota 3 22%
West Virginia 5 21%
Alaska 3 20%
South Carolina 8 16%
Georgia 15 11%
Arizona 10 11%
Texas 34 9%
Mississippi 6 7%
Arkansas 6 7%
Idaho 4 7%
Wyoming 3 5%
Nebraska 5 4%
Louisiana 9 3%
Kansas 6 3%
Tennessee 11 2%
Kentucky 8 2%
Alabama 9 1%
Oklahoma 7 1%
Utah 5 0%

The ones I find surprising are, in no particular order: Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana.

Of note are Michigan & Ohio, which have trended firmly back into Obama's camp after Clinton's concession.

Iowa isn't too surprising given how well he did in the primary and how much time he spent there. Clinton won Montana in 92 and lost by only 3 in 1996. It's a winnable state for Democrats in tough economic times.

Ohio at 62% is a bit high I think. I mean, if he wins that, then he wins the election unless he drops a big Kerry state.

Indiana at 31% shoots up at least 20 points if he picks Bayh for VP, if not more.

I certainly think he has a better shot in GA than SC.

Oh yeah. Way to feel like my vote counts. :)

Actually it's neither, although one can debate whichever is a worse scenario. Congress is the one with the pursestrings and the "devil-in-the-details" legislation, usually declaring any proposed legislation from Executive to be DOA, or at best, guidelines to add on whatever they wish. To me, the length of time to enact legislation is irrelevant - it what comes out of that body that affects all of us, in some way or form. One of Bush's biggest failures is his inability to veto any legislation during the Rep. dominated Congress (as well as its rubber-stamping). Taking it to an extreme, I actually want no legislation to come out of Congress, except what is granted to them Constitutionally and to significantly pare down current legislative-mandated bureacracies and taxations. The same for Executive. Realistically, I want gridlock. I guess that would mean a strong Executive with the balls to veto and a Congress being forced to scale back.

Those are both a bit higher than I would've guessed. We've been seeing a ton of ads for both sides in Michigan.

As the economy tanks it is rapidly becoming the most important aspect to the coming election. Obama is currently attacked as both inexperienced and elitist but here is the oppportunity to turn the tables on McCain who has admitted to being relatively ignorant in economics and reliant on his advisors. But Gramm has shown his advisors to be elitist (what recession?) and out of touch with mainstream Americans. McCain's reliance on advisors makes his objection to Gramm's views unconvincing and I'm surprised the Obama camp hasn't made much more of this.

The New Yorker cartoon was a case, I think, of personal financial gain overcoming political commitment :)

It should be pointed out that Obama, a resident of Hyde Park in Chicago, knows most of the highly-respected economics staff of the University of Chicago, i.e. the "Chicago School" of economics, and their advice would figure greatly in his administration. And this is a pretty free market crowd.

McCain has Phil "Mental Recession" Gramm.

Rasmussen's polls out today put both Nevada and North Carolina into statistical ties.

The race will tighten up significantly after the conventions -- especially when some of the 527s out there start running racially-tinged ads in currently competitive states where that kind of crap plays.

The biggest question in my mind is how that stuff will influence the electorates in MI, PA and OH. NC and GA are sideshows for the most part. This election will be won in those three big states. It is difficult to see how Obama wins without taking all 3.

electoral-vote.com has Obama with 325 electoral votes right now. Even if you take Ohio away, then 305 is more than enough.

Even if you discredit the possibly suspect polls in Indiana, Montana, and Virginia, that still leaves him with 278.

I think McCain is going to have to take 2 of 3 from MI, OH, and PA.

Maybe not Michigan - Colorado + New Mexico + Nevada (which I think all 3 will go to McCain) more than equal MI. But, yes, if OH and PA both go blue, there is no way Obama can lose. Likewise if 1 of them goes red, it will be tough for Obama to win. That's the way I've always understood this race.

The math doesn't support your scenario. If Obama loses all the states where he has a slim or suspect lead (NV, CO, IN, OH, MT, VA) then he has 264 electoral votes. PA would certainly be enough. If anything, it looks like he could lose PA and OH, and still win if he takes VA or CO. And we're not even including MO, which is dead even right now.

It's pretty clear that McCain needs to take both OH and PA, to win this election. 1 of 2 won't be enough, unless he pulls off a major upset somewhere else.

Well, looking at the electoral-vote map, I would say these states are fairly likely to move Red by November:

3 Montana
9 Colorado
5 New Mexico
5 Nevada
3 North Dakota
3 South Dakota
11 Indiana
13 Virginia

That's 52 more, making it 251 total for McCain. In that scenario either PA or OH would make a GOP victory. Michigan would be trivia.

Dola, I guess I may be wrong about Virginia, but maybe Missouri will move red as well.

South Dakota is already being counted for him, so it puts him at 248 before those states. PA would only get him a tie and send things to the House. OH wouldn't be enough to even do that.

This isn't to say those states aren't important. I was just responding to the idea that he needed to win all three. If he only wins two of MI, OH, and PA, then it's a lock and we can forget about all of those states on your list. If he only wins one of three, then he still has a chance depending on if he can pick off one of those states you listed, which I don't think is unlikely (especially if Bayh is on the ticket.)

Well you can swap SD with Missouri, and the math becomes even clearer - Obama must win both OH and PA (if those states all go red).

Something that the guys at fivethirtyeight.com focus on is when a state might matter. For instance, regardless of whether Obama could be competitive in North Carolina or Georgia, they do not see many maps in which Obama wins those states without winning Virginia, and if he wins Virginia, then NC and GA are gravy.

Same thing with Missouri. Missouri is basically Ohio with a little more friendly GOP demographics. So, if Obama wins Missouri, then he has probably already won Ohio, in which case he will not need Missouri.

By the same token, it is hard to see McCain winning Iowa or Minnesota without winning Ohio. And, if he wins Ohio, he might not need those states.

Of course, if you do not accept the basic premise of 538--that elections are basically demographically driven and national--you probably won't accept that analysis either.

Obama must win both OH and PA if he loses all 9 of the other close states. I don't disagree with this statement, but that's a pretty big qualifier.

I wish Tim Russert and his eraser board were still around. :(

I don't think its that big a qualifier. I think the consensus is that Obama is polling high now, and that his numbers will come down.

I'm surprised that more people here don't cite the Real Clear Politics electoral college analysis more often. In 2004, most of these sites (like electoral-vote.com) were all over the board with their final predictions, while RCP correctly predicted every state except Wisconsin (which Kerry won by 0.4%). RCP also correctly predicted the popular vote outcome within 1%.

Obama is at a peak and McCain is in a trough. Things will tighten up after the conventions. The GOP goes second, and I think that will be an advantage for them. A number of the states that look achievable for Obama at the moment are not. Especially, I contend, after the race cards start getting played.

I don't see the situation playing out like that with Obama outspending McCain by more than 2 to 1.

It's a liberal dominated board.

It's a conservative dominated board.

dola

This is interesting.

I wish there were some people's pictures for me to photoshop!

Jesse Jackson obviously has too much free time on his hands...he needs to find a big corporation somewhere to shake down. If Obama wins, Jackson has shot down any chance he had to be an influential figure connected to the administration.

As for the New Yorker cover, I thought it was funny and laughed out loud when I saw it. I think one reason there hasn't been much said on the liberal side about it is because satire is rooted in truth, and the Dems are scared sh*tless something like this could resonate with the public -- better to ignore it and hope it fades away.

I confess I didn't understand the New Yorker cover. I don't get what it was trying to do.

Jesse Jackson is no more relevant than Hell Atlantic.

Phil Gramm was mostly right.

Exactly, they have extremely accurate in the past. As a matter of fact, Obama peaked at 7% better than McCain after getting the nomination, but now has slipped to 4.2% since that point. I think Obama wins the election, but I think it'll be much closer than some on the board think.

Sarcasm?

I just saw the New Yorker cover, I know the point was to be over the top but it was still a bit much IMO.

Jesse Jackson should ban himself from TV appearances until after the election (or forever), people just don't like the guy and nothing he says is going to help Obama win.

They are scared that showing how batshit crazy the right is could resonate with the public? :confused:

This board has traditionally been conservative in terms of political discussions. However, being as the events of the last seven years or so have illustrated reality's liberal bias, we've seen a marked diminishment of support for the conservative arguments in many threads, with only a handful of stalwart holdouts still supporting the conservative line.

In relation to the question at hand, I speak for myself when saying I don't tend to spend much time on ephemera such as cartoons and flag pins. There are more serious issues that deserve attention, and the majority of folks who don't hold a position tend to view such quixotic attempts as a representation of the unseriousness of a poster. Further, spending time on dumb issues dilutes the larger political discussion, and tends to create enough confusion and argument that undecided folks tend to get frustrated and decide not to be involved.

You are thinking in only one dimension again. Just because neo-conservative positions have become undefendable does not mean that it has to swing back to dubious liberal positions. Many are sick of both extremes and have come to realize the follies of an entrenched Federal govt and its ever-increasing powers. It does not mean that we all should be moderates, independents or libertarian-minded, but those have become preferred places away from the "same tired rhetoric" of blue liberals and red conservatives. I see no difference between the various stalwarts on both extremes and while arguing for a "third way" is really no better, at least it may get people thinking beyong the simpleminded red vs blue.

The only thing that's happening again is you attacking my viewpoint, despite the fact that I'm not a hardline liberal -- in fact, as a registered Independent, I'm exactly the audience you would find common ground with from your political viewpoint if you weren't so aggressively silly about treating my positions as anathema. For some reason you haven't figured out in seven years that attacking positions which are closer to yours than not doesn't help your cause. It's the same old song with you, Bucc -- you claim to be Libertarian, vacilate between philosophies that don't always reflect the way you supposedly would like to see our political system work, and reserve your fire for what you view as liberal positions, never conservative. Heck, you haven't even figured out I'm not a Democrat yet. I haven't argued for any extreme positions in my history here that I know of, besides being against the Iraq war (which was an extreme position around here at the time).

I tend to view myself as being relatively moderate with regards to many political positions. The two-party polarization that makes the kind of political effort we need impossible is something I am frustrated by as well, but I also recognize that there is not a viable alternative on the national level. Neither the Democratic nor the Republican Party has it completely right, and both sides hold positions to which I find affinity. Frankly, I might identify the fact that you don't seem to recognize the difference between the way things actually work in reality and the way you want them to work as a key source of your issues with my posts. The odd thing is that you have enough experience in the world to recognize the difference, and yet still choose to make your targets out of the very people who may be sympathetic to your cause given the right kind of reality-based reasons.

NoMyths, I was not attacking your viewpoint. I was speaking in generalities about those taking stalwart conservative or liberal positions and arguing from one side or the other. I did not reference in my last post anything about your personal positions and did not deserve to get dumped on in the same manner that you accuse me of. We were talking about "reality's liberal bias", "stalwart holdouts of conservative positions" and "batshit crazy" positions from A or B.

But to your specific charges, for those that do not fall into stalwart positions in red or blue, I do not see very much independent or moderate arguments, me included. It's just the nature of the way discussions go here. In order to make ones point clear, one typically state an opposition position to keep the discussion going. A lot of it comes from downright dislike of certain aspects of the opposition - regardless if the position one is arguing from is any better or defendable. I do that because I see very little solutions at that level. The reality is that our sphere of incluence does not include anything at that level, so one just give to Caesar what is his and go on with our lives in making a tangible difference in what we can realistically accomplish.

I realize that "reserving fire for liberal positions, never conservative" is a hyperbolic perception but I understand where that can come from. First, as you said, there are very few stalwarts of the neo-con positions here and I don't argue with Jon (not worth it) and so, the opportunities arise less. Second, the opposite of libertarianism (as I understand it) is socialism. Many of the "changes", "hope" and "fixes" people are advocating are more socialistic in nature and I have to speak up against those, just like I have against nation-building.

As far as consistency, I do argue from several angles that may be in conflict. The reason is that I mostly likely to argue as a historian, providing historical perspective (esp. for those hyperbolic statements like "unprecendented" or "worse of all time"). Those arguements have little to do with personal beliefs, like bringing up Lincoln and FDR. It's just a way of providing some perspective. Also, I view politics as a game, esp. the election campaigns, from a spectator point of view. Heckling seems to be the fun part of it. :)

I realize that you and I are alike in more ways than not (just like I have argued in the past there really is not that much different between any of the political parties, esp. making fun of those using the "far-" labels). But I have noticed one distinct difference in which I have reacted to - I don't take politics personally, nor what goes on or doesn't go on at the higher levels. It goes back to my nature of not having a favorite team I get emotional about. Nothing in politics upsets or excites me. I read too much history to get bothered much by current events. That's why I argue that in the end, while it becomes great topics to argue and discuss, we go on with our lives as best we can and find opportunities to help those we can affect.

I don't believe it's hyperbole though. Once when you started that thread about your Libertarianism I thanked you and told you that I had doubts about your sincerity before then. I simply cannot recall you ever attacking a conservative view or defending a liberal one. Ever. I had pegged you as a republican in a libertarian body.

The closest I can recall you doing when you can't defend the conservative side is call for gridlock or claim politics as usual.

I'm sure that you don't see yourself that way and maybe you have done it here; I certainly haven't read every political thread but I have to say +1 to NoMyths on this one particular point. Again, your thread about libertarianism convinced me that you aren't trying to be that way but you do come off like it. There is at least one more person that I've felt that way about here but lately I've been rethinking that on him too.

All of this comes about when people cling to silly labels instead of just saying what they feel IMHO.

I do have to manage perceptions better.

The inflammatory cover was to sell magazines. It did nothing to further the political discussion in this country.

Axxon, this year's election is interesting but not necessarily for a voter like me. There are only three choices: A, B or neither A or B. Several things about that:
- there is not a viable C or D candidate to vote for
- a truer choice for some would be A (or B) with qualifiers but since we don't do that, not much we can do except go along with either or neither
- the best chance that McCain has in winning comes down to turnout
- the simple way for Obama to win is to keep possible and likely McCain from voting for McCain, therefore it becomes a strategy of turning voters off from McCain (which we've seen here already)
- I don't think the reverse is true since the turnout for Obama will be high regardless (for many reasons)
- I am neither a supporter of Obama or McCain but interested in the race, how does that come across to those supporters of A or B?
- I have said this before but I do like Obama a little better than McCain - but NOT with a Democratic Congress
- as a libertarian, the worse scenario would be Dem Congress and Executive, just like we saw with a Rep Congress and Executive
- so, does that make me a Rep in libertarian clothing when neither candidate, nor Congress, would be libertarian-minded and can only hope for gridlock?

I would go further. I would have thought that the Jesse Jackson comments would work for Obama and not be neutral and certainly not against - it confirms that his approach is not the "radical black politics" that he was tainted with by the Rev Wright saga which I think has spooked some in the white, blue collar community. Some on the extreme left may be upset by this but their vote isn't going anywhere else when push comes to shove.

The cartoon I thought was either a shallow piece of thinking from the New Yorker - failing to see that many more would see the front cover cartoon than would read the article inside and miss the satire - or a cynical preference of increased sales over political commitment.

Yet the intent was to show all the right wing craziness regarding Obama. I mean we are talking about "The New Yorker" here. It ain't some rag.

Well, sort of; the intent was to show all the purported right wing stereotypes of Obama. Few informed, educated conservatives believe any of those allegations about Obama.

I don't think critically deciding which candidate more closely aligns can be considered anything but prudent. I don't even think intrinsically there's anything wrong with gridlock. Well, I didn't until now anyway.

Personally I think this administration has fouled things so badly that we need to right the ship and not leave the status quo. We may overcorrect but I doubt it. Having like minded congress and presidency doesn't necessarily mean a mandate as you well know but it does mean that compromise starts from strength for the powers in the majority.

So, it really comes down to how you feel about Obama as a bipartisan and he has reached across the aisle before including with McCain and gotten things done. McCain, who I actually would consider voting for if he was still the 2000 McCain has IMHO bought into the so called Bush mandate and it strikes me that he's far less a bipartisan than he was 8 years ago and while it's as much a stereotype as the New Yorker's Obama I am concerned with his age and short temper being related.

As you may remember, I consider Reagan the worst president of my lifetime and his conveniently forgetting that he'd betrayed the country by selling arms to our enemies does prejudice me against McCain. Considering how far he's tacking right these days, there's no way I could consider voting for him.

For me though, when your "bias" rings clear isn't in talking about particular candidates, it's the general throw away lines which are often telling when listening to people


Here you take a surgeon's scalpel to the conservative position and then turn around and use the widest brush possible to paint the liberal position. It pretty much is sound bite kinda fare and guess who's soundbite?

That's the kind of statements that resonate with me but again, as I understand you, your thinking is pretty conservative. Your main beef with the republicans is governmental activity not ideological differences with their goals so it makes sense you'd consider their views correct and discount opposing views out of hand.

That seems to be the difference between a Libertarian and an independent. Of course, this is vastly oversimplified too but in general it seems to hold true.

Me, I used to be pretty much an independent. I was socially left leaning and fiscally ( since I admit to not knowing jack about money ) I was willing to defer to those who had money and a balancing act here in the various governments would insure that at least some of the money would be used for the proper social programs. I honestly don't think there's any real indicator of foreign policy competence bias to either party so I hadn't even really considered that until this administration.

Now, though, this administration ( and to some degree the irrational minority positions in the Clinton times ) has so fouled my thinking that I don't know if I'll ever be able to achieve that balance again. Admittedly, McCain of 2000 would have been the guy who could have started that if any current pol could, the new version doesn't fill me with confidence and there's no way he'd earn my vote even if the democrats nominated Damian Thorne but they didn't nominate Damien Thorne they nominated Barack Obama who isn't flawless by any means but has the potential to be true leader ( he'd have never gotten as far as he has without leadership skills ) and if we're going to get this country back on track it's going to take a leader, not someone who gets his orders from the fringe of his party.

No, it was to show right wing stereotypes.

I'm glad you did state this though because it brings me to my point. Informed, educated people of either party can get the cartoon. It's not brain surgery but it requires a bit of thinking to see it. It would be a mistake to consider it something that reflects the views of the educated conservatives.

But..

Lets back off and think of the majority of the people. What would those not willing or able to figure the cartoon out think?

Lets call the groups X and Y.

X thinks the cartoon is dead on, funny and reflects the truth.

Sorry poster, I'm not attacking you but you said what I meant so well.

Y thinks the cartoon is over the top, right wing based and somehow will hurt the candidate thus was not a good idea.

This is only part of your quote but again, there's not much for example on this thread and I'm not going web surfing to find a quote which says what you just said here. Consider this representative of a general feeling not a personal one.


Now, given these two groups, which ones do you think are the right wingers? Thus my point.