Black Hole....errr The Political Roundtable

[Cramer]

Swami,

No need to apologize but back at ya. I was getting a little uncomfortable because I found myself getting upset with someone I respect and like a lot (you). As with most arguments on here, I only realize I'm too wrapped up emotionally when it's too late to catch myself.

Cheers

[miller31time]

^^^ Our 2-party system could learn a thing er' two from the Wiz-Board.

[Wizards2Lottery]

^^^ Our 2-party system could learn a thing er' two from the Wiz-Board.

Yeah that half of us want Eddie Jordans head on a stick and the other half have already built him a shrine?

[miller31time]

^^^ Our 2-party system could learn a thing er' two from the Wiz-Board.

Yeah that half of us want Eddie Jordans head on a stick and the other half have already built him a shrine?

But in the end, aren't EJ supporters and EJ detractors really just Wizards fans (just as Republicans and Democrats are all Americans)? At the end of the day, do we not root for the same team?

Well, except for Ji. I'll leave that analogy to the more creative type.

[Silvie Lysandra]

Both candidates are awful, but McCain is less awful.

Obama is just a typical liberal (i.e. welfare socialist) with great oratorical abilities.
McCain is a typical conservative who has opposed some of the elements of Republican corporate socialism. However, Obama will raise spending and cut taxes (sound familiar?) and McCain has at least said he'll make an effort to cut spending (grain of salt as usual).

Obama's tax policy (progressive taxation is absolutely terrible for the economy as a whole) will be a disaster, he will raise the national debt (sure, McCain might raise it with more adventures overseas but don't assume Obama will be any less trigger-happy - an outright repudiation of the War on Terror is a 3rd rail),

Character-wise I'll take McCain easily (unlike Bush, McCain seems to be a genuinely good guy) and Obama really needs to explain why he's even associated with Ayers in the first place. it's "hearsay" but still needs a coherent explantation.

Basically, I'm a conservative/libertarian, and Obama is typical liberalism in a fancy new suit; McCain is more or less a neo-con who actually believes in neo-"conservatism" (neo-conservatism isn't conservatism at all) with at least agreeable rhetoric about government spending.

[yungal07]

How is Obama going to raise the national debt if he's proposing getting the troops out of Iraq, which will cut something like $100 billion from the national deficit?

[nate33]

How is Obama going to raise the national debt if he's proposing getting the troops out of Iraq, which will cut something like $100 billion from the national deficit?

The Iraq War is essentially over (you can tell because the media isn't talking about it any more). Both candidates would pull the majority of troops out of there very soon.

[MF23]

Both candidates are awful, but McCain is less awful.

I don't think either is horrible. As of now Obama has explained a more progressive approach and McCain hasn't explained enough at all. It's almost like McCain wants a lot to remain status quo and his voting record further indicates that. His maverick approach went away 8 years ago and to speak of change in his campaign is more pandering.

Obama's tax policy (progressive taxation is absolutely terrible for the economy as a whole) will be a disaster, he will raise the national debt (sure, McCain might raise it with more adventures overseas but don't assume Obama will be any less trigger-happy - an outright repudiation of the War on Terror is a 3rd rail),

Depends on what Obama is spending on. If it has great benefit for the future economy than that is fine. I just like the idea of ending tax benefits for major businesses and imports. The war on terror can be derailed if you shift it more towards homeland security. I like the fact that McCain will kick arse if the US is messed with but who can claim that Obama won't?

Character-wise I'll take McCain easily (unlike Bush, McCain seems to be a genuinely good guy) and Obama really needs to explain why he's even associated with Ayers in the first place. it's "hearsay" but still needs a coherent explantation.

Yes, more explanation should happen. Obama was a kid when Ayers was a criminal so I don't really see the connection to that stuff. McCain should be commended for going to Memphis and apologizing for his pandering to bigots in Arizona. Thing is, he's been changing a lot of his apparent views on things. The experience and celeb bashing stuff that was his focal point seems to have taken a back seat in less than 3 weeks. His change to a change campaign is laughable when you look at the facts of his voting record. Again, the maverick behavior has been absent.



Nate, the Iraq war will take a long time to figure itself out to an end. McCain or Obama will have to finesse the bordering countries into keeping peace. Once an independent Government and military are in place and there is some type of sectarian peace treaty then we can talk of removal and refunding our efforts in that country.

I want a President who is progressive and influential for this very important time. There is a lot to be done and McCain or Obama have the potential to do some good. My hopes are that Obama is not a do nothing and McCain is just pandering to pubs but will shift once he's in office. As of now Obama is convincing me that he'll follow through and McCain won't specify his approach but has promised dems in his cabinet.

[Doug_Blew]

I'm not crazy about all the social programs that Obama will create or revamping the health care system. I'm also a proponent of free trade and privatizing Social Security. But I'm getting tired of the Republican rah rah tactics of our country is better than yours and their refusal to use diplomacy instead of force.

I could have lived with McCain winning the nomination until he chose Palin as his running mate. Knowing that she could pick some of our next Supreme court justices scares the hell out of me. I've had enough of the pandering to the religious fanatics.

[Kanyewest]

How is Obama going to raise the national debt if he's proposing getting the troops out of Iraq, which will cut something like $100 billion from the national deficit?

The Iraq War is essentially over (you can tell because the media isn't talking about it any more). Both candidates would pull the majority of troops out of there very soon.

[Severn Hoos]

I've stayed out of this thread, and the previous Politics thread, because frankly - they're far inferior to the discussion that used to go on here. The "original" politics thread was probably my favorite on the board (after the "Bash Larry Hughes" thread...). Back then (I know, starting to sound like crotchety old man), the discussion was primarily issue driven. Now it is personality driven. Bush is an idiot, McCain/McSame, tons of talking points, and very little demonstrated grasp of issues below the surface/sound bites. In this sense, I agree with Wes' comments from a few pages back about posting your own thoughts vs. recycling someone else's.

That said, there are a few points that I'd gladly share, in hopes that perhaps we could recapture the spirit of the "old days" (Pine - are you with me?).

I'll start with what should be a non-partisan issue that was discussed earlier, namely the Electoral College. I agree with the points raised at the start of this thread about the original intent of the EC, and they are pretty much on target (ensuring that smaller states have a say, etc.). There's another point or two that I'd like to add from a practical perspective.

First, in any given election, between 2-3% of votes are not counted. They may be "spoiled" - multiple choices, unclear choices, etc. All of the things that were rehashed in the Florida debacle. If these votes constitute a "margin of error" in that they might have tipped the balance one way or another if they were counted, then most elections in the past 50-100 years would have been within the "margin of error", and thus subject to a national recount (!). Kennedy/Nixon, Bush/Gore, and Bush/Kerry are the most notable examples, but you could make a case for others. Do we really want every 50%-49% election subject to the type of scrutiny & rancor from Florida 2000, but on a national scale? If you're the guy who got 49% of the vote, and feel in your heart of hearts that you wuz robbed, would you have the right to challenge every single vote from among the 100+ million cast? Yikes. At least in the current system, the recounts would be limited to a state or two, since most of the states end up outside the margin of error.

But even more than that, the EC brings legitimacy to results that otherwise might be perceived as lacking. In 1992, Bill Clinton received just 43% of the vote. Given the turnout that year, it means that less than one in four eligible voters cast a vote in support of him as President. Yet, the EC gave him a victory of 370-168 over Bush. No one questioned his legitimacy, despite only winning a majority of the vote in one state - Arkansas. The situation was somewhat repeated in 1996, when Clinton got 49% of the vote, but got a perceived "mandate" in the EC by a 379-159 total (over 70% of the EC).

And if you do away with the EC, will you establish a threshold to "win" the Presidency? If no one gets 50%, will you just give it to the top guy? What if there are 5 or 6 (serious) candidates running, and the top votegetter gets just 40% of the vote? 35%? 30%? 25%? Do you want to hand over the White House to someone in the low 20s? Or would you prefer the drawn-out saga of a national run-off?

The question to me is, is the payoff of "direct election" worth the potential pain that could come from doing away with the Electoral College? My opinion is that it is not, and that the Founders got this one right (or at least, more right than wrong).

[Severn Hoos]

I'll jump back into the "partisan" discussion with one observation. A new Rasmussen poll shows that 60% of Americans believe in the unremarkable idea that the Supreme Court should decide cases on the basis of, you know, the, uh, Constitution or somethin'. Seems logical to me. I thought I learned that back in school somewhere. If anything, it's troublesome that the number isn't higher.

But then I saw this breakdown by who the voters are supporting for President:

Most American voters (60%) agree and says the Supreme Court should make decisions based on what is written in the constitution, while 30% say rulings should be guided on the judge’s sense of fairness and justice...

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

What?!?! less than 3 in 10 Obama supporters think justices should rule on what is in the Constitution? Does anyone want to defend this position? And if that's the case, why are we so worried about BushHitler "shredding the Constitution" when it's at best secondary to SC decisions, at least according to the overwhelming majority of Obama supporters?

This mindset is far more damaging to the actual Constitution, stability, and the rule of law than anything the Bush administration has or could do on its own. Hopefully, the ConLaw Professor will straighten out his supporters. I'll be waiting...

[dobrojim]

Sev,

interesting poll and troubling if true and/or an accurate reflection of voter attitudes.
Also ironic/paradoxical given the way one party has treated the Constitution like TP
while the other party has laid down and let what was supposed to be the most
important branch of govt become complete lap dogs.

re the EC, the fundamental problem with it as I see it is that it weights voters
in some states higher than others. I fail to understand any moral basis for that
result. It's an anachronism that needs to end BEFORE we get a result that makes
it clear it's outlived whatever usefulness it may have one time had.

So I hear Palin is actually doing an interview but it's going to be over a 2 day period...
amazing what they are getting away with. Since when do candidates require "deference"?
Since last week I guess.

[BanndNDC]

cmon now, simple logic states that elected officials actually violating the constitution (and massively expanding the power of the state) is more damaging then average citizens saying decisions should be guided by fairness and justice (and becoming disillusioned).

there's also the problem with the false dichotomy presented in the wording of the question which sets it up that fairness/justice and constitution/precedent are mutually exclusive.

but the real reason for those answers is the same partisan code word, gotcha game spin we've all been playing (and the republicans perfected) in recent years. people know the question is coded and then answer accordingly. i certainly agree that the use of bs spin that says conservative decisions are non-ideological and constitution based while progressive decisions are not is very damaging (and a complete and utter lie). i wish the dem side was smarter and didnt fall into the same rhetorical traps all the time but what can they do. no matter how they answer it will be used against them (because of the preexisting bs spin). blame post modernism. until we stop buying into the spin and rewarding the politicians that talk down to us through simplification and us v. them crap our society will continue to erode.

maybe that has to do with the answer to one of the other questions in that poll.

4* Do most Supreme Court Justices have their own political agenda or do they generally remain impartial?

65% They have their own political agenda
18% They remain impartial
17% Not sure

only 18% think the Supreme Court is impartial. egads.

[MF23]

We'll said BanndNDC. Pubs know how to play elections.

[Cramer]

So I hear Palin is actually doing an interview but it's going to be over a 2 day period...
amazing what they are getting away with. Since when do candidates require "deference"?
Since last week I guess.

My understanding is that ABC has unfettered access to Sarah for 2 days and will conduct two seperate interviews with her over those 2 days, with nothing off limits. That's deference? Starting your spin a bit early, eh?

[dobrojim]

it ain't spin

that's the word 'pub operatives used

we'll see what kind of questions she gets asked

and what happens after that

[dobrojim]

quick observation

it's been stated here in this thread that Obama is THE most liberal member of
the senate

But that was the same thing that was said about Kerry in 04. And IIRC, he's
still in the Senate. Besides, there are others who I believe many would say
are definitely MORE liberal than Obama (or Kerry). Can you say scare tactic?
But the interesting thing about that is that the fear that is trying to be raised
is rarely directed against any specific policy. In fact, the fear is often been
about things that most of us would consider to be "change". Irony? And when it is
directed against specific policy(ies), it is often seriously misrepresented.
Meanwhile average Americans living stds continue to fall. And we talk about
"small things" instead of how to get this country out its downward spiral.

[Cramer]

Well, another way to put it is that he's voted with his party 96% of the time, a party that has control of the senate, and senate that has the lowest approval rating in history. Sure you can spin that, hell, I could do it for you, but it isn't something I'd want to be running on. Neither is that the fact that there are (maybe) more liberal senators.

[Cramer]

it ain't spin

that's the word 'pub operatives used

we'll see what kind of questions she gets asked

and what happens after that

My guess is she does very well and Gibson gets demonized from the left.