Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[bulletsponge]

ok i usually never venture into a political thread, and im sure ill need asbestos underwear for saying this but ill give my opinion on the die hard Clinton supporters. To a woman (and there almost all women) they are bitter middle aged women way past thier prime who are voting for Clinton because shes a woman. a vote for her is basicaly a vote for themselves in thier eyes. all the anger and frustrations in thier lives are being spewed out in this race and they feel thier woman (themselves) are being passed over and disrespected, rehasing old hurt feelings in thier own lives

[ace1914]

I agree. For me, I'm a 31 year old engineer, with a 28 year old s wife who's a travel nurse. We plan to have our first kid next year once we're finished with her loans.

I want my family to feel safe from the world hating our hypocritical "pre-emptive striking" asses. I want my country to be self-sufficient when it comes to energy by the time my kids are teens. I want to get into a home within the next 3 years and at least, let me feel like I'm making a sound investment and not throwing our money away in a 250,000 stationary car. I don't think its too much to ask for, right?

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Yeah because the Democrats have really stood up to Bush. They really oppose his policies!

Well its hard to vote against a president that scares the people into submission, especially if you want to get reelected.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ace1914

I want my country to be self-sufficient when it comes to energy by the time my kids are teens.

If I thought Obama could do that I'd donate far, far, more than I could afford to his campaign, even if he spent the rest of his time in a shed out back behind the white house watching porn.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by molson

If I thought Obama could do that I'd donate far, far, more than I could afford to his campaign, even if he spent the rest of his time in a shed out back behind the white house watching porn.

The fact that he tried to intelligently explain the futility of off-shore oil drilling to the American people for as long as he did, gave him a +1 for me. Again, another case where trying to go the intelligent, informed route, will not win the presidency.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ace1914

I agree. For me, I'm a 31 year old engineer, with a 28 year old s wife who's a travel nurse. We plan to have our first kid next year once we're finished with her loans.

I want my family to feel safe from the world hating our hypocritical "pre-emptive striking" asses. I want my country to be self-sufficient when it comes to energy by the time my kids are teens. I want to get into a home within the next 3 years and at least, let me feel like I'm making a sound investment and not throwing our money away in a 250,000 stationary car. I don't think its too much to ask for, right?

1. It doesn't matter who ends up being president. After the Iraq screw-ups involving the reasons why we attacked, any future pre-emptive strike by a president is going to be scrutinized much more closely for the foreseeable future.

2. Regarding energy, it also doesn't matter a whole lot who is president. The vast majority of Americans, regardless of party, are calling for better energy policies and options. There is some disagreement, mainly regarding drilling off-shore, but both sides agree that stuff needs to change quickly. The Russia-Georgia situation only further amplifies that point. (By the way, if you want to see what oil companies have to do to drill now in protected areas, watch the latest season of 'Ice Road Truckers' on the History Channel. Amazing stuff.)

3. There's not a better investment right now than a home and that won't change regardless of who's president. The prices are ridiculously cheap.

For as much as we talk about the effect of each candidate, I'm relatively sure that the next president won't have much control at all over upcoming policies. Public sentiment and Congress will have much more control over that.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ace1914

The fact that he tried to intelligently explain the futility of off-shore oil drilling to the American people for as long as he did, gave him a +1 for me. Again, another case where trying to go the intelligent, informed route, will not win the presidency.

That's a plus, but a meaningless one, as he did ultamitely decide that offshore drilling would be a necessary part of his energy plan.

The American citizens are the only ones that can make us self-sufficient, and they won't do it until there's a catostrophic economic depression.

So I can't give Obama real points there just because he thinks nice thoughts. And that's where I'm stuck with Obama. Nice thoughts and nothing more.

So when issues like that are a wash, McCain's experience starts to look better.

[larrymcg421]

I'd be interested in seeing what the disaffected Clinton voters think after they vote for McCain, he gets into office, John Paul Stevens retires from the court and Roe v. Wade is history.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'd be interested in seeing what the disaffected Clinton voters think after they vote for McCain, he gets into office, John Paul Stevens retires from the court and Roe v. Wade is history.

There's no way that happens given the overwhelming Democrat majority in Congress. They'd never let that through.

[JPhillips]

Obama's not going to be able to "bring the troops home" before 2012

At least not now that we've apparently agreed to withdraw all combat troops by 2011! It would be nice if that agreement made a little more news.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

1. It doesn't matter who ends up being president. After the Iraq screw-ups involving the reasons why we attacked, any future pre-emptive strike by a president is going to be scrutinized much more closely for the foreseeable future.

2. Regarding energy, it also doesn't matter a whole lot who is president. The vast majority of Americans, regardless of party, are calling for better energy policies and options. There is some disagreement, mainly regarding drilling off-shore, but both sides agree that stuff needs to change quickly. The Russia-Georgia situation only further amplifies that point. (By the way, if you want to see what oil companies have to do to drill now in protected areas, watch the latest season of 'Ice Road Truckers' on the History Channel. Amazing stuff.)

3. There's not a better investment right now than a home and that won't change regardless of who's president. The prices are ridiculously cheap.

For as much as we talk about the effect of each candidate, I'm relatively sure that the next president won't have much control at all over upcoming policies. Public sentiment and Congress will have much more control over that.

I can't believe that the new President(McCain or Obama) will not have a huge effect. For basically, all of my adult life I've been living under Bush. I look at how I felt 8 years ago and where we are now. The towers have been knocked down, two of my aunts have lost their homes, and I've got two frat brothers in Afgahnastan(sp, I know), whose safety I gotta pray for. I know, this is soapbox material but that's real life for me and these are issues near to me. I look at what Bush has done to this country and there's no arguement that can convince me that a new president will have some reduced role in the future of the country.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

At least not now that we've apparently agreed to withdraw all combat troops by 2011! It would be nice if that agreement made a little more news.

I saw that but didn't quite believe it for some reason.

That would seem to be a blow for the Dems that this isn't even a difference-point anymore. Though Obama had pretty much dropped the "accelerated withdrawal" push since his Iraq trip.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ace1914

The towers have been knocked down, two of my aunts have lost their homes, and I've got two frat brothers in Afgahnastan(sp, I know), whose safety I gotta pray for.

Do you think those things wouldn't have happened if Al Gore won in '00? (or a time-warped Obama?)

IMO:

-Clearly 9/11 was a long-term plan and it would have happened no matter what. Some blame Clinton but I don't think anyone would have had a real vision or courage needed to prevent that (just like nobody has the courage/vision on energy now to prevent the inevitable). Bush/Clinton were all warned ad nauseum about Osama - but what can you do in a pre-9/11 world?

-Tech bubble bursts no matter what, we have economic struggles no matter what (especially after 9/11). I think there is now an opportunity for either recovery or further stagnation, and I think this is a key issue for me in this election.

-Wasn't Afganistan "the right war" all along? Sure, we'd have focussed more attention there without Iraq, but the Afgan war was won early - how long would troops have stayed? Whenever we left, the Taliban would creep back (as they have). We certainly wouldn't have "won the war on terror" by now, there'd be a key battling ground somewhere. At least its not Pakistan (yet). Iraq was an abomination, but I'm not convinced that Bush has done an awful job on terror in general. I would have NEVER beleived, after 9/11, that our government would have kept terror out of US soil for 8 years, and that the world would see as few attacks as it has. They don't get enough credit for that. They're doing something right. I have confidence McCain will continue that success, Obama is a question mark.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ace1914

I can't believe that the new President(McCain or Obama) will not have a huge effect. For basically, all of my adult life I've been living under Bush. I look at how I felt 8 years ago and where we are now. The towers have been knocked down, two of my aunts have lost their homes, and I've got two frat brothers in Afgahnastan(sp, I know), whose safety I gotta pray for. I know, this is soapbox material but that's real life for me and these are issues near to me. I look at what Bush has done to this country and there's no arguement that can convince me that a new president will have some reduced role in the future of the country.

First, we would have had the tower knocked down no matter who was in power. That's not Bush's fault. They hated us long before Bush.

Similarly, the towers provided perfectly good reasons to go into Afghanistan, regardless who was in power. The Taliban would have been targeted either way.

The only thing you could place on Bush is their slow reaction to the risky loans being handed out to consumers. But to be honest, I hold the consumers who took those risky loans just as responsible. If you buy a house and used a fixed interest loan, you'll never have any problems and will only be approved if you truly can handle the loan given the tighter restrictions on loans that now exist.

Edit: I should note that I'm not talking about your aunts and their situation because I don't know what the situation was. In general, there was a lot of people who borrowed over their head and should have known better.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There's no way that happens given the overwhelming Democrat majority in Congress. They'd never let that through.

They can't reject every justice he puts up. If they put up another Alito that is obviously qualified, they're going to have a hard time justifying opposition to that person.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by molson

Bush/Clinton were all warned ad nauseum about Obama - but can you do in a pre-9/11 world?

Maybe had Clinton heeded those warnings, his wife would have been prepared to beat Obama

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I saw that but didn't quite believe it for some reason.

That would seem to be a blow for the Dems that this isn't even a difference-point anymore. Though Obama had pretty much dropped the "accelerated withdrawal" push since his Iraq trip.

Yes, having Bush and the Iraqi government sign an agreement that's basically what Obama's been advocating is bad for the Democrats.

If your argument is nobody is paying attention, you're right, but substantively this should be a blow to the guy that endorses 100 or 1000 or 10000 years in Iraq.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

-Clearly 9/11 was a long-term plan and it would have happened no matter what. Some blame Clinton but I don't think anyone would have had a real vision or courage needed to prevent that (just like nobody has the courage/vision on energy now to prevent the inevitable). Bush/Clinton were all warned ad nauseum about Obama - but can you do in a pre-9/11 world?

Woops.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

First, we would have had the tower knocked down no matter who was in power. That's not Bush's fault. They hated us long before Bush.

Similarly, the towers provided perfectly good reasons to go into Afghanistan, regardless who was in power. The Taliban would have been targeted either way.

The only thing you could place on Bush is their slow reaction to the risky loans being handed out to consumers. But to be honest, I hold the consumers who took those risky loans just as responsible. If you buy a house and used a fixed interest loan, you'll never have any problems and will only be approved if you truly can handle the loan given the tighter restrictions on loans that now exist.

Edit: I should note that I'm not talking about your aunts and their situation because I don't know what the situation was. In general, there was a lot of people who borrowed over their head and should have known better.

And the Iraq War, but who's counting?

[Butter]

Dude, has McCain got, like, a PS3 in his pants or something? This discussion is getting one-sided in a hurry.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Woops.

Yup, I cringed and edited that - thanks for immortalizing it

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Yes, having Bush and the Iraqi government sign an agreement that's basically what Obama's been advocating is bad for the Democrats.

If your argument is nobody is paying attention, you're right, but substantively this should be a blow to the guy that endorses 100 or 1000 or 10000 years in Iraq.

No, my argument that is if it's Obama's 2012 plan v. whatever McCain's plan is, that's a HUGE plus for Obama, because the vast majority of Americans prefer to withdraw. Now that that's (apparently) settled, it's not a reason to vote for Obama.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And the Iraq War, but who's counting?

But he didn't mention the Iraq War in his post. He was mentioning things that affected him that were caused by Bush and mentioned Afghanistan. That would have happened regardless of who was in charge. Bush didn't create that problem.

We could argue who did and didn't support Iraq all day long, but it wouldn't accomplish much. They're moving in the right direction now and that's about all you can hope for.

[ace1914]

Ok, the towers got hit. We go beat down Afgahnistan, but we don't go to Iraq and we'd be done with Afgahnistan already. Do I believe these things would have happened with Gore? Although irrelevant, no I don't believe the times would be as bad with Gore in office but again that's a moot point. I guess the point I was trying to make before I began rambling, is that I think the new president will have as much of a profound effect on the direction of this country, as W The Decider did.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Ok, the towers got hit. We go beat down Afgahnistan, but we don't go to Iraq and we'd be done with Afgahnistan already.

Sure, I agree with that. Much different than your original point.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by molson

Yup, I cringed and edited that - thanks for immortalizing it

I saw it too. Freudian I guess....

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Sure, I agree with that. Much different than your original point.

I don't even count Iraq because my views on that probably belong on a conspiracy site.

[ace1914]

I got some other controversial topics to bounce off you guys but time to go eat lunch with the Mrs.

[SackAttack]

MBBF, keep in mind that the story the press *wants* is that disaffected Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama.

Conflict sells more newspapers than puppies, kittens and rainbows.

They will find that story, no matter how deep they have to dig, because the alternative just won't sell newspapers.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

MBBF, keep in mind that the story the press *wants* is that disaffected Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama.

Conflict sells more newspapers than puppies, kittens and rainbows.

They will find that story, no matter how deep they have to dig, because the alternative just won't sell newspapers.

I don't disagree. Some are overblowing it, while others try to diminish its relevance. But there is without question some discontent. Measuring the exact size of the problem is the hard part. The post convention polls should help with that. We likely won't see the full effect until after the Republican convention. The post Dem convention poll will likely be useless as McCain is going to announce his VP selection the night of the Obama speech or the next day after.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I don't disagree. Some are overblowing it, while others try to diminish its relevance. But there is without question some discontent. Measuring the exact size of the problem is the hard part. The post convention polls should help with that. We likely won't see the full effect until after the Republican convention. The post Dem convention poll will likely be useless as McCain is going to announce his VP selection the night of the Obama speech or the next day after.

There's discontent. But you know what? I don't think W's voting base was necessarily 100% in lockstep with him in either election. There were more than a few folks who held their nose and voted for him in 2004 despite "discontent" because they felt the alternative wasn't an acceptable one.

The problem for McCain is that even if he leeches off, what. The numbers ABC was showing last night had 70% voting for Obama, 20% not, and 10% undecided, if I recall. So let's say they split the undecideds, and 25% of Clinton voters go for McCain. Great.

Now, he still has to get HIS base as fired up about him as Obama has the rest of the Democratic Party. McCain's ability to steal a quarter of Clinton voters only matters if he seals the rest of the deal.

And, frankly, anything that would get the conservative wing of the GOP fired up enough to turn out for McCain in droves would probably be polarizing enough for the rest of those Clinton voters to hold their noses and vote for Obama after all, don't you think?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

And, frankly, anything that would get the conservative wing of the GOP fired up enough to turn out for McCain in droves would probably be polarizing enough for the rest of those Clinton voters to hold their noses and vote for Obama after all, don't you think?

His VP selection will define how McCain plans to attack the rest of the election. We'll be able to answer the questions you pose much more accurately at that point.

I agree that some voted for Bush that weren't in lock-step, but that was also a different situation than the one we're discussing here. He was an incumbant and so there was no real conflict at the convention. There was no choice over Bush unlike the Obama/Clinton scenario.

[larrymcg421]

To reiterate my earlier point, can you imagine the conservative uproar that would happen if Stevens retired, leaving a 4-4 Roe split on the court, and McCain appoints a pro-choice justice? Let's get real here. That wouldn't even be an option for him. He will keep appointing pro-life justices until enough Dems cross over to support one. Voting for McCain is voting for the end of Roe vs. Wade.

Personally, I don't mind that so much as I am a liberal who thinks Roe should be overturned. I'd be more worried about the erosion of civil liberties that would take place.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

To reiterate my earlier point, can you imagine the conservative uproar that would happen if Stevens retired, leaving a 4-4 Roe split on the court, and McCain appoints a pro-choice justice? Let's get real here. That wouldn't even be an option for him. He will keep appointing pro-life justices until enough Dems cross over to support one. Voting for McCain is voting for the end of Roe vs. Wade.

Personally, I don't mind that so much as I am a liberal who thinks Roe should be overturned. I'd be more worried about the erosion of civil liberties that would take place.

I have two separate questions on this point.

1. How much of Roe v. Wade was a political decision by the courts? I'm assuming that at one point the Supreme Court made decisions based on the law and not on politics, but how much did politics play a role in the original decisions?

2. What happens to the Government or the perception of Government if Roe v. Wade is overturned? Does the SC lose any credibility if they change a law of this magnitude based on politics?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I have two separate questions on this point.

1. How much of Roe v. Wade was a political decision by the courts? I'm assuming that at one point the Supreme Court made decisions based on the law and not on politics, but how much did politics play a role in the original decisions?

2. What happens to the Government or the perception of Government if Roe v. Wade is overturned? Does the SC lose any credibility if they change a law of this magnitude based on politics?

This is where there's a real misunderstanding. The Supreme Court has never made decisions without the influence of politics. One, these are humans with political agendas and ties to the most powerful people in the country. Two, the law is often what lawyers and judges say it is. The cases that make it to the Supreme Court are those where the laws don't provide a clear enough answer to the problem.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

A Democrat voting for McCain doesn't have nearly the effect of the opposite situation. If McCain is elected, he'll still face a major check of power in the form of a Democrat majority (and possibly super-majority) in one or both houses of Congress. He'll have his hands tied and won't be able to make any major policy changes or judicial nominations.

On the other hand, the religious right has much more at stake in the form of judicial nominations. An unchecked Democrat majority in Congress in coordination with a Democrat president could push through as many as 3 Supreme Court nominations along with numerous Circuit court nominations. They could put the judicial system squarely against the religious right for years to come. Failing to vote in the upcoming election would prove disasterous for them.

And why is that a bad thing?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Now, he still has to get HIS base as fired up about him as Obama has the rest of the Democratic Party.

I believe the nomination of Obama did a great deal of that work for him already.

If I've ever been a good example of anything, it would be a GOP voter who was unenthusiastic about McCain (putting it mildly). And I wouldn't miss voting for him now for any reason short of being dead.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I have two separate questions on this point.

1. How much of Roe v. Wade was a political decision by the courts? I'm assuming that at one point the Supreme Court made decisions based on the law and not on politics, but how much did politics play a role in the original decisions?

It was a 7-2 decision, but there were rumors that Burger joined the majority just so he could assign the opinion to Blackmun and this angered Brennan and Douglas who wanted a far more liberal opinion. However, I've read Blackmun's notes, which seems to refute that.

The Planned Parenthood vs. Casey case in the early 90's was definitely filled with politics. Rehnquist considered delaying it after the election, which seemed like a political move and only put it on the docket because some of the liberal justices furiously protested and threatened to write a dissent on that decision. Rehnquist thought he had a majority and circulated an opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade. It looked like this would be the case, until three GOP appointees got together and decided to allow some of PA's limitations on Roe, but to uphold the central finding.

2. What happens to the Government or the perception of Government if Roe v. Wade is overturned? Does the SC lose any credibility if they change a law of this magnitude based on politics?

I don't see how it could possibly be any worse than what happened after Bush vs. Gore.

Also, some people seem to think that overturning Roe would make abortion illegal nationwide. Not true. It would simply send the issue back to the states, and the laws would differ from state to state.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This is where there's a real misunderstanding. The Supreme Court has never made decisions without the influence of politics. One, these are humans with political agendas and ties to the most powerful people in the country. Two, the law is often what lawyers and judges say it is. The cases that make it to the Supreme Court are those where the laws don't provide a clear enough answer to the problem.

This makes me sad - and probably more than a little bit naive. With all of the discussion in the past few years about "activist judges", I had the impression that personal politics were set aside more in the past. Maybe this was never the case and I just had an idealized impression of the SC.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Also, some people seem to think that overturning Roe would make abortion illegal nationwide. Not true. It would simply send the issue back to the states, and the laws would differ from state to state.

And the number of states than give people a right to abortion (or just retain existing statues) might create another argument about whether abortion is a fundamental legal right, federally speaking.

I wonder if anyone's ever done a study/prediction about how states would respond.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by BrianD

This makes me sad - and probably more than a little bit naive. With all of the discussion in the past few years about "activist judges", I had the impression that personal politics were set aside more in the past. Maybe this was never the case and I just had an idealized impression of the SC.

Of the two the bigger issue IMO is that the cases selected by the court rarely have obvious answers. Certainly politics enters into the equation and on some decisions it dominates, but justices can and do disagree over what the law actually means. My big complaint with folks like the Federalist Society is that they falsely argue that there is always a right and wrong decision based solely on the wording of the Constitution or federal statute. Cases like Roe v. Wade, the recent one on the 2nd amendment, and countless others can be argued with an honest disagreement over the meaning of the law.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

I wonder if anyone's ever done a study/prediction about how states would respond.

Here's a blog that cites a report from The Center for Reproductive Rights that talks about that subject.

4 states have "bans-in-waiting" (as of 2007), basically they kick in if RvW is overturned. 5 others are/have considered the same sort of thing.

They estimate 21 states (including the nine above) would ban ASAP.
They estimate 20 states would not ban.
They considered 9 states as possibly going either way - Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.

FWIW.

[molson]

Activist justices are only apparently bad if they actively create law you don't like.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Here's a blog that cites a report from The Center for Reproductive Rights that talks about that subject.

4 states have "bans-in-waiting" (as of 2007), basically they kick in if RvW is overturned. 5 others are/have considered the same sort of thing.

They estimate 21 states (including the nine above) would ban ASAP.
They estimate 20 states would not ban.
They considered 9 states as possibly going either way - Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.

FWIW.

Surprising to be that so many would ban.

I should maybe start up an "abortion tourism" business that provides airfare, hotels, and limo to the clinic in an abortion-friendly state.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Galaril

And why is that a bad thing?

You won't find me arguing against minimizing the role of the religious right in politics.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Surprising to be that so many would ban.

I should maybe start up an "abortion tourism" business that provides airfare, hotels, and limo to the clinic in an abortion-friendly state.

I know you're kidding, but I'm sure there would be attempts to pass a federal law disallowing this.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

Surprising to be that so many would ban.

I would imagine that's probably a worst case scenario (or best, depending upon your POV of course) since the report was from a group that definitely has a direct interest in the outcome.

Wouldn't surprise me if it were around half & half though, since it's such a contentious issue and we seem to be split close to the middle on so many things today.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I believe the nomination of Obama did a great deal of that work for him already.

If I've ever been a good example of anything, it would be a GOP voter who was unenthusiastic about McCain (putting it mildly). And I wouldn't miss voting for him now for any reason short of being dead.

Yes, but Jon, it's been established already that you're a lunatic, and thus not representative of the voter pool at large.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

2. Regarding energy, it also doesn't matter a whole lot who is president. The vast majority of Americans, regardless of party, are calling for better energy policies and options. There is some disagreement, mainly regarding drilling off-shore, but both sides agree that stuff needs to change quickly. The Russia-Georgia situation only further amplifies that point. (By the way, if you want to see what oil companies have to do to drill now in protected areas, watch the latest season of 'Ice Road Truckers' on the History Channel. Amazing stuff.)

Ah, call me the waahmbulance. Every industry has a cost of entry and this is the oil industry's. Such difficulties keep scores of lawyers, geologists and accountants in jobs, which is good for the economy.

Actually, I'd argue that holding off on drilling in many of these areas is actually good for the U.S.'s long-term economic/energy interests.

For one, as many have pointed out, drilling in these areas isn't going to put a dent in world supply. So it's not like opening up ANWR is going to result in $1.00/gallon gas.

For two, the idea that this is a near-term strategic risk is pretty laughable. The U.S. is the world's biggest market for petroleum. Producers can't simply cut the U.S. off without in turn destroying their income source. That's a dangerous line for them to walk as well, and we've seen absolutely no inclination from them since 1973, and I'd argue it's even less possible as we have a greater variety of producers these days. Sure, this will change as China & India become greater consumers but then:

For three, we should use this time period to work on alternative fuels and conservation, so that by the time we get replaced as a significant consumer of petroleum, we're much more insulated against the whims of the producers.

And finally, if we wait many decades before opening up these areas, we'll be doing so a) with better and safer technology and b) in an era of even higher petroleum prices, which will be more money going into our coffers at a later date when, arguably, we'll need it even more.

Supply and Demand has made the U.S. its bitch with regard to oil. We still have time to turn the tables in the long-term. Now there's a goal.

Originally Posted by molson

-Clearly 9/11 was a long-term plan and it would have happened no matter what. Some blame Clinton but I don't think anyone would have had a real vision or courage needed to prevent that (just like nobody has the courage/vision on energy now to prevent the inevitable). Bush/Clinton were all warned ad nauseum about Osama - but what can you do in a pre-9/11 world?

It was Bush, however, who decided to ignore the "Bin Laden Determined to Attack U.S. Mainland" NIE, though, not Clinton. Maybe that's just part-and-parcel of a pre-9/11 world, but you can't argue that Gore would have done just as much zilch that summer as Bush did. You just don't know. Heck, maybe a continuity in cabinet and sub-cabinet positions between the Clinton & Gore administrations may have pushed some action in the summer of 2001.

-Tech bubble bursts no matter what, we have economic struggles no matter what (especially after 9/11). I think there is now an opportunity for either recovery or further stagnation, and I think this is a key issue for me in this election.

Bush responded to the bursting bubble and signs of slowdown by cutting taxes and hoping for the best. Now at the end of the Bush Administration we have near-unanimous agreement in finance & economics circles (including the WaPo and even the Cato Institute) that some earlier action and/or increased scrutiny by Treasury, SEC and/or the Fed would have been a good thing. Again, Bush did zilch.

To make this relevant to the thread, McCain's a candidate with an avowed lack of experience on the economy and has a chief economic advisor who thinks the recession is mostly psychological and that Americans are whiners. So there'd definitely be continuity between the Bush & McCain administrations on economics. So that would be awesome.

-Wasn't Afganistan "the right war" all along? Sure, we'd have focussed more attention there without Iraq, but the Afgan war was won early - how long would troops have stayed? Whenever we left, the Taliban would creep back (as they have).

You're forgetting that the Afghan war, like Iraq, was won, and then lost. You seem to have forgotten the many, many analyses done by the DoD and others in the past few years which have concluded that the shift in priorities to the Iraq war left the door open for today's resurgent Taliban. The entire military establishment is pretty convinced that if we stayed in Afghanistan full strength and not gotten distrated by Iraq, it'd be much, much better off today.

I would have NEVER beleived, after 9/11, that our government would have kept terror out of US soil for 8 years, and that the world would see as few attacks as it has. They don't get enough credit for that. They're doing something right. I have confidence McCain will continue that success, Obama is a question mark.

I'm going to disagree with "as few attacks as it has". There's Britain & Spain, for two, plus the development of a whole new generation of terrorists & advancement in terror tactics facilitated by the two "proving grounds" in Afghanistan & Iraq.

I don't get the whole McCain/Obama assessment here either. The info coming out of the intelligence agencies is going to be largely the same Administration to Administration. Either candidate is going to staff their cabinet & sub-cabinet with competent people (especially in a post-9/11 world) in this area. So it comes down to thinking that Obama's going to underestimate threats coming out of the intelligence apparatus that McCain won't because of McCain's superior "experience". I highly doubt that.

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Voting for McCain is voting for the end of Roe vs. Wade.

Out of all the "what would a McCain/Obama Administration look like?" speculation, this (and its converse with Obama) is one of the few certainties, especially since I'm sure Stevens & Ginsburg are the next to retire.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

and thus not representative of the voter pool at large.

What? You mean those likely (R) voters who don't care for McCain aren't written off as lunatics