Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Flasch186]

regardless, he served his punishment and anything more than that wouldve needed to have been given out appropriately. If she did intervene to pressure him to be fired than she overstepped her bounds, if she didnt than she didnt and that would be a good thing for her and probably the country. either way, the truth needs to be found out so I hope all parties agree to cooperate with the investigation.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

2000-2008 is the time my peers found careers, bought a house, got promoted, got marrried, started saving for retirement, etc. There's no way 2008-2016 will see that kind of rate of improvement, no matter who's president.

For you, maybe. But I can almost guarantee that, as an aggregate (so anecdotal evidence need not apply), the people who graduated in 1992 will be a lot better off over their career than those of us who graduated around 2000. The tech boom in the 90s artificially inflated salaries as well as employment numbers.

Just considering the unemployment numbers: they're 4.0 in 2000 and 6.1 now so that's likely 2.1% of the population who is worse off. Unemployment numbers are those who are looking for work so this can't be discounted with "maybe they just chose to not work" or something.

Or how about that per capita income versus inflation has been pretty much flat (a slight increase) but income disparity has gotten much greater. So, while the per capita doesn't move much, more money has gone to the highest 1% so the other 99% have actually lost money.

So, just talking financially, a lot of people are in the same place (or worse) they were 8 years ago which is a step backwards when you account for your argument of "EIGHT years is a long time to get your shit together. If you can't, you're not good at life. Sorry."

SI

[GrantDawg]

Ok, this campaign is getting really weird. I was just riding through the town where I work, and there was a big digital billboard with a campaign message.


Sarah Palin
America's Hockey Mom
For Vice President

There was no mention of McCain on the billboard. Does anyone else ever remember a VP campaign billboard? Poster? Road sign?

[Vegas Vic]

With all of the bad news for Obama poll wise, I think it's only right to point out a couple of state polls that came out today where Obama is leading:
+2 in Washington, and +3 in New Jersey.

[CamEdwards]

+3 in New Jersey? Wow. That seems as wonky as the NC polling. Wonder if it's because the poll's registered as opposed to likely voters.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Ok, this campaign is getting really weird. I was just riding through the town where I work, and there was a big digital billboard with a campaign message.


Sarah Palin
America's Hockey Mom
For Vice President

There was no mention of McCain on the billboard. Does anyone else ever remember a VP campaign billboard? Poster? Road sign?

Just wondering ... was that board just off I-75 somewhere around the 120 Loop?

IIRC, there's a building owner with a private billboard/message board there who sometimes puts up political messages/endorsements seemingly of his own accord (as I understand it).

[Flasch186]

Bay Buchanan (GOP strategist) just said on AC360 that the media is helping the GOP keep the spotlight on Palin and personality and thus helping them 'win'. Write this date down for when the GOP cry 'liberal media bias'. Again, if it's ratings (which Palin is garnering) then it'll lead.

[larrymcg421]

Newsweek national poll shows a 46-46 tie.

[Warhammer]

It is really interesting to see how others perceive the economy. In the building trades industry things are running wide open. Engineering firms have a fair amount of work, and contractors are picking and choosing jobs. Some are even having difficulty finding bodies.

I think that a big problem that we are having is that we are becoming unbalanced in our economy. Sure, high tech jobs are great, but we need more workers doing more low tech, skilled labor sort of jobs. We have a glut of high tech workers which has resulted in lower pay rates because there are so many of them. We need more balance.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

For you, maybe. But I can almost guarantee that, as an aggregate (so anecdotal evidence need not apply), the people who graduated in 1992 will be a lot better off over their career than those of us who graduated around 2000. The tech boom in the 90s artificially inflated salaries as well as employment numbers.

How can you be so certain of the outcome when those who started in 1992 still have half their career to complete and those in 2000 have more than half their career to complete. People who started in 1955 can argue the ecomony was much better than it was for those who started in 1975, but statistics may very well show the people who started in 1975 after completing a 30 year career were better off after 30 years than those who started in 1955 were after 30 years. The tech boom and bust of the 90's is just one of many booms and busts in a dynamic and vibrant economy.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Or how about that per capita income versus inflation has been pretty much flat (a slight increase) but income disparity has gotten much greater. So, while the per capita doesn't move much, more money has gone to the highest 1% so the other 99% have actually lost money.

This is silly and does not even make sense. Comparing the highest 1% which is a very small number of people to 99% a much larger group is confusing at best.

How about we take an extreme example of your method. More money has gone to the single richest household in America, therefore EVERYONE else actually lost money.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

So, just talking financially, a lot of people are in the same place (or worse) they were 8 years ago which is a step backwards when you account for your argument of "EIGHT years is a long time to get your shit together. If you can't, you're not good at life. Sorry."

SI

There is credence to improving over time. Very few people stay in the bottom quintile of the U.S. ecomony based on census data. In fact if you grauate high school, get married (and stay married) & keep a job (work more hours per week) you are likely to increase your annual income year over year. That generally gets you to a place where you are better off than you were before.

[st.cronin]

Intrade has McCain at 50.8, Obama at 48.7. This is the first time McCain's been pricier since before either had emerged as a frontrunner.

Looking at RCP's electoral map, the following states are tossups:

Nevada (5)
New Mexico (5)
Colorado (9)
Michigan (17)
Indiana (11)
Ohio (20)
Pennsylvania (21)
Virginia (13)
New Hampshire (4)

Obama is likely to win 217 electoral votes, McCain 216. The magic number is, of course, 270. So Obama needs to collect 53 evs from the tossups, McCain 54.

Edit: my guess is Obama swings Nevada and New Hampshire, McCain gets Colorado and New Mexico, making the score Obama 226, McCain 230, and leaving these 5 states to decide the election:

Michigan (17)
Indiana (11)
Ohio (20)
Pennsylvania (21)
Virginia (13)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Wow. I just watched he Palin interviews on Youtube and am not sure what I just heard. First off, the fact she had zero I mean zero, nil none NADA idea what the Bush Doctrine was tells me alot about her. It was really embarassing when Gibson had to tell her what it was.

Many Versions of 'Bush Doctrine' - washingtonpost.com

Intentionally or not, the Republican vice presidential nominee was on to something. After a brief exchange, Gibson explained that he was referring to the idea -- enshrined in a September 2002 White House strategy document -- that the United States may act militarily to counter a perceived threat emerging in another country. But that is just one version of a purported Bush doctrine advanced over the past eight years.


Peter D. Feaver, who worked on the Bush national security strategy as a staff member on the National Security Council, said he has counted as many as seven distinct Bush doctrines. They include the president's second-term "freedom agenda"; the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves; the willingness to use a "coalition of the willing" if the United Nations does not address threats; and the one Gibson was talking about -- the doctrine of preemptive war.

And interestingly enough:


Political Radar: Obama: Clinton Would Continue "Bush Doctrine"

In a conference call with reporters, Obama said Clinton would continue the "Bush doctrine" of only speaking to leaders of rogue nations if they first meet conditions laid out by the United States.

So... uh... are you embarrassed that Obama has no idea what it is either? Or perhaps, ready to admit that there really isn't ONE "Bush Doctrine"?

[st.cronin]

Fixed a really dumb mistake in my last post. I'm still pretty comfortable saying that the most important states are Ohio and Pennsylvania; if they manage to split these two, then it looks like it will come down to Indiana, Michigan, and Virginia, whoever wins 2 of those 3 will be the next President; but if either Obama or McCain wins both OH and PA they will probably be our next president.

[Mac Howard]

she had zero I mean zero, nil none NADA idea what the Bush Doctrine was tells me alot about her. It was really embarassing when Gibson had to tell her what it was.

This seemed to be a "gotcha" question from Gibson but I don't think her failure to understand exactly what he meant will go down badly with an audience who were similarly confused. The "go to war over Georgia" criticism is over the top as well.

But he did have a "gotcha" point and failed to recognise it when he asked her what she meant by referring to the Iraq war as "God's war". She even painted herself even further into a corner by saying that no one could possibly know what God's will was. Realising that she then had difficulty explaining why she thought it God's war she struggled and switched onto a totally different track about her son in Iraq. Gibson should have insisted on an answer and moved on to why she believed drilling in ANWR was "God's plan". But he fluffed it.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Edit: my guess is Obama swings Nevada )

I'll respectfully disagree. In the western battleground, I think Obama carries New Mexico, but loses Colorado and Nevada.

[st.cronin]

Well, I'll be surprised if Obama wins New Mexico. That's the one tossup state I feel sure about.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Well, I'll be surprised if Obama wins New Mexico. That's the one tossup state I feel sure about.

It's a very close race there, and he'll get a lot of support from Bill Richardson, whom I would have voted for if he had gotten the Democratic nomination.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Many Versions of 'Bush Doctrine' - washingtonpost.com




And interestingly enough:


Political Radar: Obama: Clinton Would Continue "Bush Doctrine"





So... uh... are you embarrassed that Obama has no idea what it is either? Or perhaps, ready to admit that there really isn't ONE "Bush Doctrine"?

No.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I'll respectfully disagree. In the western battleground, I think Obama carries New Mexico, but loses Colorado and Nevada.

No I think he will carry our fair state of Colorado and New Mexico but lose Nevada. He really needs to win Pennsylvania and maybe Virginia or Ohio to have a shot with this goofy electoral college shit.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

It's a very close race there, and he'll get a lot of support from Bill Richardson, whom I would have voted for if he had gotten the Democratic nomination.

Well, we'll find out. There are a large number of stylistic differences between Obama and Richardson, some of which I think explains Richardson's popularity in the slightly Republican-leaning state. Obama just doesn't feel like the kind of pol that appeals to most people in this state. my $.02

[path12]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

It's a very close race there, and he'll get a lot of support from Bill Richardson, whom I would have voted for if he had gotten the Democratic nomination.

Apologies if you've explained this before Vic, but I'm curious: Why yes on Richardson but no on Obama?

[GoDukes]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm a Dubya supporter and I had honestly forgot what the Bush Doctrine was. I think the left are far more aware of its meaning because they disagree with it and have it transfixed in their mind. Once Gibson explained it, I knew what he was talking about, but I had the same reaction as her initially.

That's all well and good, but you're not running for VP. l might expect you to have that reaction. As someone who is John McCain's running mate, l'd be disappointed in you.

[molson]

Originally Posted by GoDukes

That's all well and good, but you're not running for VP. l might expect you to have that reaction. As someone who is John McCain's running mate, l'd be disappointed in you.

Obama's running for president, and he has no clue what it is.

I wonder if Bush knows what it is.

[ace1914]

Forget the Bush Doctrine. Who cares. I'm worried about her not being able to name three things that she would change about the Bush administration.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

Obama's running for president, and he has no clue what it is.

I wonder if Bush knows what it is.

y'know, every now and then it's ok to admit when something doesnt go right.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Many Versions of 'Bush Doctrine' - washingtonpost.com




And interestingly enough:


Political Radar: Obama: Clinton Would Continue "Bush Doctrine"





So... uh... are you embarrassed that Obama has no idea what it is either? Or perhaps, ready to admit that there really isn't ONE "Bush Doctrine"?

This argument would have more validity if she had enunciated anything that could be considered the Bush doctrine. Instead she described a policy that was replaced by Bush. At least some conservatives get this and don't rush to defend her irregardless of facts. From National Review's Rich Lowry:

She somehow bluffed her way through the Bush doctrine question. Gibson apparently didn't want to go into full "gotcha" territory by asking flat-out if she knew what it is. And then he muddled things further with his dubious definition of it, so she was never truly nailed and there was enough ambiguity there for conservatives to defend her. The fact still remains that she very likely didn't know any of the possible definitions of the Bush doctrine. I can't imagine if Obama had picked Gov. Tim Kaine and he had had a similar moment, conservatives would have rushed to say that the Bush doctrine is just too amorphous and complicated for him to know anything about it. Palin seemed weak on economic and budgetary policy too, talking in the vaguest generalities.

[Buccaneer]

Edit: my guess is Obama swings Nevada and New Hampshire, McCain gets Colorado and New Mexico, making the score Obama 226, McCain 230, and leaving these 5 states to decide the election:

Michigan (17)
Indiana (11)
Ohio (20)
Pennsylvania (21)
Virginia (13)

Based on this, my prediction would be that McCain wins Indiana, Ohio and Virginia. Obama wins Pennsylvania and Michigan.

[Flasch186]

She's kind of like Hulk Hogan.

She's got good mic skills, and can play to the crowd, but after the taking of the 4th punch where she waves her fingers and blows her cheeks up while stomping around in a circle to get "hulked" up, and after she drops the final leg drop, and the music hits the crowd is in a roar. Then when you start to analyze his true in ring abilities you find out that she's lacking in the execution dept.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

y'know, every now and then it's ok to admit when something doesnt go right.

hahahahahahaha - coming from you, that's just - hahahahahahahah

By the way, according to wiki, scholars idenitfy 7 different "Bush Doctrines"

Bush Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But seriously, I asked this before. Why do you give a shit? Can you stop scraping the bottom of the barrel for dirt for one friggen day? Do you think you change one person's mind with this constant, irrelevant garbage or is this some version of message board masturbation?

The message to me, like with Kerry, is that an Obama candidacy can't stand on it's own. It needs constant bullshit to support itself.

ace1914 is absolutely right - he's worried McCain will be McSame. Fair point. We can disagree, but it's a legitimate political discussion. This bullshit about bush doctrines and 90% of what you bring to the table just makes me turn my stomach more and more about democrats, even though I agree with them on policies far more than Republicans. You can't even see your own smugness and obnoxiousness.

I've thought this before, but maybe I need to say it to follow through, I gotta get the hell out of this thread. I encourage any other non-robots to do the same, so the Obamaniacs and sit around and have a circle jerk.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

She's kind of like Hulk Hogan.

She's got good mic skills, and can play to the crowd, but after the taking of the 4th punch where she waves her fingers and blows her cheeks up while stomping around in a circle to get "hulked" up, and after she drops the final leg drop, and the music hits the crowd is in a roar. Then when you start to analyze his true in ring abilities you find out that she's lacking in the execution dept.

You may have gotten one thing right. Politics is like Wrestling..........

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

hahahahahahaha - coming from you, that's just - hahahahahahahah

You should read some of my posts from the last 3 pages where I was fawning about her abilities and defending her and saying she got it right, etc. You missed those?

Just like another person at FOFC you choose not to like me due to our disagreements about politics and thats ok. I get along fine with Jon and we're probably about as opposite as they come. Eh, the sand is not a good place for your head to be buried.

And the reason I care to expose lying is becuase it should be exposed. Hypocrisy and lies are not a thing to just let go by.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

hahahahahahaha - coming from you, that's just - hahahahahahahah

By the way, according to wiki, scholars idenitfy 7 different "Bush Doctrines"

Bush Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But seriously, I asked this before. Why do you give a shit? Can you stop scraping the bottom of the barrel for dirt for one friggen day? Do you think you change one person's mind with this constant, irrelevant garbage or is this some version of message board masturbation?

What universe are you in where you only read stuff like this coming from one side? Do you ignore posts from SFL Cat, Vegas Vic, and others on the right? (Note: I didn't include Jon because he seems to be committed to intelligent discussion lately).

The message to me, like with Kerry, is that an Obama candidacy can't stand on it's own. It needs constant bullshit to support itself.

Um, Obama isn't the one that ran an ad accusing his opponent of wanting to teach sex ed to Kindergarteners. Obama didn't run an ad accusing his opponent of sexism for using the same exact phrase that he's used in the past. Obama didn't try to use factcheck.org in their ads only to have factcheck.org turn around and say such usage was a lie.

ace1914 is absolutely right - he's worried McCain will be McSame. Fair point. We can disagree, but it's a legitimate political discussion. This bullshit about bush doctrines and 90% of what you bring to the table just makes me turn my stomach more and more about democrats, even though I agree with them on policies far more than Republicans. You can't even see your own smugness and obnoxiousness.

I've thought this before, but maybe I need to say it to follow through, I gotta get the hell out of this thread. I encourage any other non-robots to do the same, so the Obamaniacs and sit around and have a circle jerk.

Again, you really puzzle me with your ability to only see stuff coming from the leftists in this discussion. How do you do it?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

She's kind of like Hulk Hogan.

She's got good mic skills, and can play to the crowd, but after the taking of the 4th punch where she waves her fingers and blows her cheeks up while stomping around in a circle to get "hulked" up, and after she drops the final leg drop, and the music hits the crowd is in a roar. Then when you start to analyze his true in ring abilities you find out that she's lacking in the execution dept.

Not bad but you left out the most important detail: she puts butts in seats.

I'd rather watch paint dry than see Hogan in the ring, but if I've got to sell tickets then I'm a fool not to consider booking him if he's available.

[Flasch186]

you, my friend, are exactly right and that is kind of what I meant on the whole but thanks for clarifying.

[sterlingice]

I'm kindof liking this Hulk Hogan analogy. Can bad Photoshop be far behind

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

you, my friend, are exactly right and that is kind of what I meant on the whole but thanks for clarifying.

I figured as much but I felt like that point needed to be made specifically.

Heck, I'll carry the analogy another step further and illustrate the dilemma I think McCain faced/faces.

I'm a promoter, I want to run a workrate based promotion but I'm running in the red. I've got a roster that I like (whether enough fans do or not) and I want to give them a chance to shine on a bigger stage. But in order to do that I have to first find a way to stay in business. Hogan is available and will work cheap. Isn't it hard not to figure "He's only one match on the card each night" and look at the good I can do for the business & for my workers if I just hold my nose & put up with him for a while?

[Flasch186]

When it comes crashing down, and it hurts inside,
ya' gotta take a stand, it don't help to hide,
Well, you hurt my friends, and you hurt my pride,
I gotta be a woman; I can't let it slide,
I am a real American, Fight for the rights of republicans,
I am a real American, fight for what's right, fight for pro-life!

I feel strong about right and wrong,
And I don't take trouble for very long,
I got something deep inside of me, and fighting is the thing that keeps us free,
I am a real American, Fight for the rights of republicans,
I am a real American, fight for what's right, fight for pro-life!

Well you hurt my friends, and you hurt my pride,
I gotta be Alaskan; I can't let it slide,
I am a real American, Fight for the rights of republicans,
I am a real American, fight for what's right, fight for pro-life!
I am a real American, Fight for the rights of republicans,
I am a real American, fight for what's right, fight for pro-life!

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I figured as much but I felt like that point needed to be made specifically.

Heck, I'll carry the analogy another step further and illustrate the dilemma I think McCain faced/faces.

I'm a promoter, I want to run a workrate based promotion but I'm running in the red. I've got a roster that I like (whether enough fans do or not) and I want to give them a chance to shine on a bigger stage. But in order to do that I have to first find a way to stay in business. Hogan is available and will work cheap. Isn't it hard not to figure "He's only one match on the card each night" and look at the good I can do for the business & for my workers if I just hold my nose & put up with him for a while?

If I was your accountant (no Jew jokes) I'd tell you to sign him up.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

If I was your accountant (no Jew jokes) I'd tell you to sign him up.

Yep.

That really brings up something that I don't think has gotten much play (or any for that matter), something that's a potentially interesting sidebar to all this if we could manage to detach from it. How unhappy about the choice is McCain deep down inside? Could make for an interesting read if someday someone writes a behind-the-scenes tell all about a McCain/Palin adminstration.

[Flasch186]

Well he certainly couldnt have gotten the fever with the alternative picks bantered about, than he did with Palin. I questioned the choice originally as lunacy but I was shortsighted, at least more shortsighted than McCain and those in his camp who were pushing for Palin. If anything I respect his ability to see the field more since picking her. It may not turn out to be the best choice IQ wise for the country (and I mean no slright there) as Leiberman, Romney, etc. may have had more 'experience' in the things that would help the country in the long run but it certainly flipped the dining room table on its end.

[Warhammer]

Well crap, while we're going through doctrines we better quiz everyone on the Truman Doctrine and the Monroe Doctrine at the same time.

Look, I can certainly understand the pertinence of the question, but I have not heard any of the other candidates asked the same question. Does Obama know what it is? Does Biden or McCain? Still, if we want to move away from such policies does it really matter?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Well he certainly couldnt have gotten the fever with the alternative picks bantered about, than he did with Palin. I questioned the choice originally as lunacy but I was shortsighted, at least more shortsighted than McCain and those in his camp who were pushing for Palin. If anything I respect his ability to see the field more since picking her. It may not turn out to be the best choice IQ wise for the country (and I mean no slright there) as Leiberman, Romney, etc. may have had more 'experience' in the things that would help the country in the long run but it certainly flipped the dining room table on its end.

Of course, and that was part of the goal after the very well done Democratic Convention. If McCain picked a Pawlenty/Romney type, he'd be behind by 5 points right now. The safe pick would have been disastrous. Palin is very charismatic and it wasn't simply exaggeration when the right was saying she's the Republican Obama.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Well he certainly couldnt have gotten the fever with the alternative picks bantered about, than he did with Palin. I questioned the choice originally as lunacy but I was shortsighted, at least more shortsighted than McCain and those in his camp who were pushing for Palin. If anything I respect his ability to see the field more since picking her. It may not turn out to be the best choice IQ wise for the country (and I mean no slright there) as Leiberman, Romney, etc. may have had more 'experience' in the things that would help the country in the long run but it certainly flipped the dining room table on its end.

I think he thought he'd get some fever by picking a Democrat. However, his thinking was faulty for a couple of reasons. Lieberman isn't really viewed as a Democrat anymore, and I think he forgot how terrible a campaigner Lieberman has been in the past.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Well crap, while we're going through doctrines we better quiz everyone on the Truman Doctrine and the Monroe Doctrine at the same time.

Look, I can certainly understand the pertinence of the question, but I have not heard any of the other candidates asked the same question. Does Obama know what it is? Does Biden or McCain? Still, if we want to move away from such policies does it really matter?

I'll bet if you asked them all now, they'd know

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I think he thought he'd get some fever by picking a Democrat. However, his thinking was faulty for a couple of reasons. Lieberman isn't really viewed as a Democrat anymore, and I think he forgot how terrible a campaigner Lieberman has been in the past.

OTOH, looking back on it, it was probably a great idea that Liebermann was floated out there. I realize to Dems Liebermann isn't considered a Democrat, but to Independents and Republicans (moderate Republicans would take note) he sure is (there is more than just a national security record).

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by path12

Apologies if you've explained this before Vic, but I'm curious: Why yes on Richardson but no on Obama?

Richardson is a centrist Democrat from the now extinct DLC. Once it got down to Obama and Hillary Clinton, I made up my mind that I was voting for McCain. If McCain hadn't gotten the Republican nomination, I probably would have voted for Obama, but I wouldn't have been very enthusiastic about it. He and Hillary Clinton are just too far to the left of my political views.

I'm still a registered Democrat, and this is the first time I've voted for a Republican for president, although I've voted for several Republicans in state and local races.

[larrymcg421]

Gallup tracking continues to narrow. McCain up 47-45 now.

[Buccaneer]

As you know, my election choice boils down to what legislation is passed/vetoed/compromised to nothing (as well as vice-versa - limiting executive powers). Here's a good example of two future legislations that must not be passed and the only way that can happen is to have a split-party Legislature/Executive (assumiung Executive have guts):

Originally Posted by From George F. Will

Next, McCain should make an asset of an inevitability by promising two presidential vetoes. The inevitability is enlarged Democratic congressional majorities in 2009. Americans suffer political astigmatism. They squint at Washington, seeing an incompetent cornucopia that is too big but that should expand to give them more blessings. Their voting behavior, however, generally conforms to their professed suspicion about unchecked power in Washington: In 31 election cycles since the restoration of normal politics after the Second World War, 19 produced divided government -- the executive and legislative branches not controlled by the same party.

Two Democratic priorities in the next Congress would placate two factions that hold the party's leash -- organized labor and the far left. One is abolition of workers' right to secret ballots in unionization elections. The other is restoration of the "fairness doctrine" in order to kill talk radio, on which liberals cannot compete. The doctrine would expose broadcasters to endless threats of litigation over government rules about how many views must be presented, on which issues, by whom, for how long and in what manner.

By promising to veto both of these forthcoming assaults on fundamental freedoms, McCain would give specific content to voters' usually unfocused fear of one-party government.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

As you know, my election choice boils down to what legislation is passed/vetoed/compromised to nothing (as well as vice-versa - limiting executive powers). Here's a good example of two future legislations that must not be passed and the only way that can happen is to have a split-party Legislature/Executive (assumiung Executive have guts):

George Will is off his rocker. Seriously, the fairness doctrine?? Of all the issues that you could attack the Democrats for, he brings up the fairness doctrine. I am strongly against bringing back the fairness doctrine (probably more than an average voter), yet it never occurred to me as an issue of importance in this election. Even worse, I did a quick check to determine Obama's stance on the issue and he is against bringing the fairness doctrine back.

And secret balloting in union voting is really a pivotal issue? Really? I'm baffled.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

As you know, my election choice boils down to what legislation is passed/vetoed/compromised to nothing (as well as vice-versa - limiting executive powers). Here's a good example of two future legislations that must not be passed and the only way that can happen is to have a split-party Legislature/Executive (assumiung Executive have guts):

C'mon, Bucc. I haven't seen anything about those as "legislative priorities" for anyone.

SI