Black Hole....errr The Political Roundtable

[daSwami]

No the point of the electoral college is that you don't want the decision who should run our country made by the same people who make Wife Swap or Jerry Springer high rated shows. It is to allow more educated individuals the ability to influence the election process. What protects us right now is the fact that politics is soooo deadly boring compared to Tom Cruise's latest public meltdown or whatever that the majority of people ignore it and allow elections to be determined by folks who actually know enough to care, or think they should care. Not saying right or wrong, just saying, that's the idea.

If the electoral college and all of it's educated individuals were scrapped, we'd have 8 less years of Dubya and 4-8 years of Al Gore. Sometimes, the majority gets it right.

I actually think we dodged a bullet when you consider how much direct influence the war mongering traitor VP Joe Lieberman might've had.

[dobrojim]

No the point of the electoral college is that you don't want the decision who should run our country made by the same people who make Wife Swap or Jerry Springer high rated shows. It is to allow more educated individuals the ability to influence the election process. What protects us right now is the fact that politics is soooo deadly boring compared to Tom Cruise's latest public meltdown or whatever that the majority of people ignore it and allow elections to be determined by folks who actually know enough to care, or think they should care. Not saying right or wrong, just saying, that's the idea.

If the electoral college and all of it's educated individuals were scrapped, we'd have 8 less years of Dubya and 4-8 years of Al Gore. Sometimes, the majority gets it right.

I actually think we dodged a bullet when you consider how much direct influence the war mongering traitor VP Joe Lieberman might've had.

fair point but how much worse could it have been than the Dark Lord's?

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

The only thing I really feel about this election is that if Barack were white and with all else the same there'd be no question as to him being the next president. Charisma, class, brains--all in stark contrast to W. He'd be such a refreshing change of pace ...

Please.

The criticisms of Obama have nothing to do with race. The bottom line is that he has minimal experience, no record of accomplishments and a preciously limited voting record (he votes "present" an astonishingly high proportion of the time). All we know about Obama is that he is a good speaker. Yes, he has attempted to lay out some of his agenda, but that agenda doesn't always match his previous voting record so there is a credibility problem there. The Republicans are correct in their stategy to attack Obama on these deficiencies.

Obviously, if you are a liberal, you're going to vote for Obama anyhow. If you are a conservative, you're going to vote for McCain. But there exists a large subset of people who don't have strong opinions on the issues; and they base their votes on their assessment of the character and experience of the candidate. Obama has an achilles heel there. It's perfectly reasonable, appropriate, and shrewd of the Republicans to attack his vulnerabilities.

Nothing to do with race? nate, that's just not true.

Minimal experience is what George W. had. I can see the hesitancy based on how jacked up that man's made things....

Obama's a GREAT speaker IMO, but there's more to the man than that. Have you read "The Audacity of Hope" or "Dreams from My Father", nate? He's also a best-selling author. But there's more to the man than words.

Just the way Obama's campaigned and defeated the Clinton political machine shows organizational skills. He's showed me more in what he hasn't stooped to than McCain, Lieberman, Palin and the rest of the Republican haters. He's inexperienced in stooping to personal attacks and fearmongering, nate. The GOP has fed the public a steady diet of that for years and I for one am SICK of it.

Character and experience are something McCain has over Barack? McCain's not taught law classes. I doubt he's as well versed on the constitution or international law as Barack.

Help me out, nate. I really want to know from a conservative what McCain's platform is that makes him a better candidate than Barack. (Do break it down Barney simple for me. )

Honestly, McCain seems like an okay guy to me. I just think he's misguided and will continue to think US armed forces should continue to be the world police no matter whether the previous administration messed things up.

[nate33]

Nothing to do with race? nate, that's just not true.

Minimal experience is what George W. had. I can see the hesitancy based on how jacked up that man's made things....

Obama's a GREAT speaker IMO, but there's more to the man than that. Have you read "The Audacity of Hope" or "Dreams from My Father", nate? He's also a best-selling author. But there's more to the man than words.

Just the way Obama's campaigned and defeated the Clinton political machine shows organizational skills. He's showed me more in what he hasn't stooped to than McCain, Lieberman, Palin and the rest of the Republican haters. He's inexperienced in stooping to personal attacks and fearmongering, nate. The GOP has fed the public a steady diet of that for years and I for one am SICK of it.

Character and experience are something McCain has over Barack? McCain's not taught law classes. I doubt he's as well versed on the constitution or international law as Barack.

Help me out, nate. I really want to know from a conservative what McCain's platform is that makes him a better candidate than Barack. (Do break it down Barney simple for me. )

Honestly, McCain seems like an okay guy to me. I just think he's misguided and will continue to think US armed forces should continue to be the world police no matter whether the previous administration messed things up.

You're entitled to your own opinion, of course. But forgive me if I and millions of other conservatives believe that McCain's 30-year history as a U.S. Congressman and Senator render him to be more qualified for the job than a man who served 2 years as a U.S. Senator and one term as a State Senatar (without putting his name on a single piece of major legislation). I don't consider a Harvard law degree to be a particularly useful qualification for the presidency. And I don't believe running a campaign for President qualifies one to be President.

What criticism of Obama have you heard (from the McCain camp of the GOP in general) do you consider to be "stooping" low? What was said that you would characterize as "fearmongering"?

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

No the point of the electoral college is that you don't want the decision who should run our country made by the same people who make Wife Swap or Jerry Springer high rated shows. It is to allow more educated individuals the ability to influence the election process. What protects us right now is the fact that politics is soooo deadly boring compared to Tom Cruise's latest public meltdown or whatever that the majority of people ignore it and allow elections to be determined by folks who actually know enough to care, or think they should care. Not saying right or wrong, just saying, that's the idea.

So the elite should decide what's best for the masses, doc?

Why don't those same smart people outlaw shows like Springer or Maury's-Baby-Daddy-Hour?

I think American culture shows exactly where this nation's heading. Tatoos, man. Believe CNN or Fox News and take it at face value if you care at all. OUTSOURCE to where it can be made cheaply and where those more educated people can continue to widen the gap between them and the have nots.

Don't know where I'm going with this, doc, but just that I think this country DESPERATELY needs change and involvement and for everyday people to give a damn again.

[dobrojim]

Cindy McCain's outfit at the convention was worth (cost) ~$300,000

Michele Obama's was something like 1000 fold less expensive.

Who is the elitist?

[miller31time]

Cindy McCain's outfit at the convention was worth (cost) ~$300,000

Good lord....

Speaking from a non-political perspective, that's just stupid.

[nate33]

If the electoral college and all of it's educated individuals were scrapped, we'd have 8 less years of Dubya and 4-8 years of Al Gore. Sometimes, the majority gets it right.

I'm sure there's an excellent rebuttal to this pointing to past elections, but I did mention that in "today's politics", I don't see a need for it.

The electoral college was put in place because of commonly understood political dynamics at the time. The interest of the people in cities generally differs from the interests of people in the countryside. Ultimately, because it's easier to campaign in cities and it's easier to vote in cities, cities became disproportionally powerful relative to the countryside. The founders decided to "stack the deck" in favor of the rural voters to compensate.

One can argue that the inherit advantage in population density is somewhat mitigated in today's era of mass media, but I don't think the advantage has been completely nullified. I think there is still a reasonable argument that the deck should be stacked in favor of rural citizens. As evidence, I cite China. China has managed to improve the financial well-being of it's city's inhibitants signficantly; but the residents of the country live in abject poverty.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Nothing to do with race? nate, that's just not true.

Minimal experience is what George W. had. I can see the hesitancy based on how jacked up that man's made things....

Obama's a GREAT speaker IMO, but there's more to the man than that. Have you read "The Audacity of Hope" or "Dreams from My Father", nate? He's also a best-selling author. But there's more to the man than words.

Just the way Obama's campaigned and defeated the Clinton political machine shows organizational skills. He's showed me more in what he hasn't stooped to than McCain, Lieberman, Palin and the rest of the Republican haters. He's inexperienced in stooping to personal attacks and fearmongering, nate. The GOP has fed the public a steady diet of that for years and I for one am SICK of it.

Character and experience are something McCain has over Barack? McCain's not taught law classes. I doubt he's as well versed on the constitution or international law as Barack.

Help me out, nate. I really want to know from a conservative what McCain's platform is that makes him a better candidate than Barack. (Do break it down Barney simple for me. )

Honestly, McCain seems like an okay guy to me. I just think he's misguided and will continue to think US armed forces should continue to be the world police no matter whether the previous administration messed things up.

You're entitled to your own opinion, of course. But forgive me if I and millions of other conservatives believe that McCain's 30-year history as a U.S. Congressman and Senator render him to be more qualified for the job than a man who served 2 years as a U.S. Senator and one term as a State Senatar (without putting his name on a single piece of major legislation). I don't consider a Harvard law degree to be a particularly useful qualification for the presidency. And I don't believe running a campaign for President qualifies one to be President.

What criticism of Obama have you heard (from the McCain camp of the GOP in general) do you consider to be "stooping" low? What was said that you would characterize as "fearmongering"?

Fear of celebrity, nate, in likening Barack to Paris Hilton, for one. They're selling the idea that Barack's inexperienced and that the only reason he's a candidate is he's a celebrity.

The idea that it's okay to bring in Palin as a person who would have a 20% chance of becoming Prez, but that Barack is some unknown commodity is character assassination and fearmongering.

Guys like Lieberman (do you watch the Daily Show--he praised Barack big time in 2006 when Joe needed reelection himself) who denigrate Obama's inexperience just get on my nerves, nate.

No arguments, man. Vote your conscience. I don't think race is on your mind but i DO think it's THE CENTRAL ISSUE. Just my opinion, man.

[miller31time]

It's my belief that those who are going to vote (or who are even thinking about voting) are now able to find whatever information they would like or need thanks to the 'new' mass media we have that you referenced (internet, television, etc) as well as the media that's been around for much longer (newspaper). The people who aren't going to vote won't be swayed by a guy campaigning in their state because they wouldn't attend or listen to the man/woman speak.

As you said, the advantages of this mass media don't completely nullify the disadvantages of a nation without the electoral college, but I believe that it's enough to consider a popular vote being the deciding factor.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Personal bias confession.

I first heard a lot about McCain when he was on a crusade to end extreme fighting.

This was about 8-9 years ago, when I could affordably watch MMA fights live from the floor level seats. No PPV back then, just underground tapes. I saw Matt Hughes when he was young and body slamming the hell out of guys, but I digress ...

Anyway, I didn't think McCain had a clue then because he clearly didn't know a thing about MMA. I knew it was scientific and something way more exciting ... AND SAFE ... than boxing then.

McCain gave up his crusade to outlaw MMA.

MAYBE if he's elected he'll see the light about Iraq, too.

[nate33]

Fear of celebrity, nate, in likening Barack to Paris Hilton, for one. They're selling the idea that Barack's inexperienced and that the only reason he's a candidate is he's a celebrity.

The idea that it's okay to bring in Palin as a person who would have a 20% chance of becoming Prez, but that Barack is some unknown commodity is character assassination and fearmongering.

Guys like Lieberman (do you watch the Daily Show--he praised Barack big time in 2006 when Joe needed reelection himself) who denigrate Obama's inexperience just get on my nerves, nate.

No arguments, man. Vote your conscience. I don't think race is on your mind but i DO think it's THE CENTRAL ISSUE. Just my opinion, man.

That Paris Hilton campaign ad wasn't hateful or fearmongering. It was a humerous attempt to imply that Obama was all style and no substance. That's a perfectly normal accusation in American politics. I find nothing offensive about it whatsoever. If you're that upset about the ad, you haven't been following politics much.

Attacking Obama's experience is perfectly legitimate. Democrats should feel free to try to attack Palin on the same issue. That's what you do in politics. I'm truly confounded by your anger here.

The only thing that's even been borderline racial was the Reverand Wright stuff. But that attack did not originate from the McCain campaign. And, frankly, with such a limited voting record, it's fair game to explore Obama's associations. How else are we to get to know the man in a manner that's not crafted by his campaign? McCain's associations are fair game too. If the Democrats want to dig up McCain's involvement with the Keating Five scandal, I wouldn't be outraged.

[W. Unseld]

If you're likening McCain to Bush, you're either gullible or haven't been paying attention. The Republican establishment was NOT happy when McCain got the nod. I'm actually not a fan of McCain's, I think he's quick tempered, I believe that he isn't controlled by the party but I also worry that even he doesn't know what his stance are on things or which way he will be leaning one day to the next.

What's my point? Stop cheerleading. Stop pulling for your "party" or your "guy" at all costs. Stop listening to the same sources over and over again. Stop getting mad at the tv when the "bad" guys are in, stop getting all hyped up when the "good" guys are on. Politics are not sports, you blind yourself when you root for a party like you're rooting for a team. The Iron Rule of Oligarchy states that eventually, every organization, no matter what it's initial purpose was will be corrupted and put it's own survival above that purpose. Neither party truly has your best interests at heart, stop cheerleading and start paying attention and demanding more.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

If you're likening McCain to Bush, you're either gullible or haven't been paying attention. The Republican establishment was NOT happy when McCain got the nod. I'm actually not a fan of McCain's, I think he's quick tempered, I believe that he isn't controlled by the party but I also worry that even he doesn't know what his stance are on things or which way he will be leaning one day to the next.

What's my point? Stop cheerleading. Stop pulling for your "party" or your "guy" at all costs. Stop listening to the same sources over and over again. Stop getting mad at the tv when the "bad" guys are in, stop getting all hyped up when the "good" guys are on. Politics are not sports, you blind yourself when you root for a party like you're rooting for a team. The Iron Rule of Oligarchy states that eventually, every organization, no matter what it's initial purpose was will be corrupted and put it's own survival above that purpose. Neither party truly has your best interests at heart, stop cheerleading and start paying attention and demanding more.

You by chance catch any of the Green Party's speeches a while back?

Cynthia McKinney, who missed an MMA calling herself, made a speech that I gathered said pretty much don't believe the Dems or the GOP. I could identify with her on that.

[nate33]

FWIW, remember the 2004 election when Kerry was arguing that 70,000 Ohio votes would have given him the presidency? Bush won the popular vote by a full 2% margin - something like 4 million votes if I recall correctly. In that election, the Electoral College worked in favor of the Democrats. Bush was 70,000 votes away from claiming the Democrats "stole" the election from him.

The bottom line is that I don't think the Electoral College provides any long-term advantage for either party. It all depends on who wins the closely contested states. As long as both candidates know the rules ahead of time, it shouldn't be an issue.

[yungal07]

Fear of celebrity, nate, in likening Barack to Paris Hilton, for one. They're selling the idea that Barack's inexperienced and that the only reason he's a candidate is he's a celebrity.

The idea that it's okay to bring in Palin as a person who would have a 20% chance of becoming Prez, but that Barack is some unknown commodity is character assassination and fearmongering.

Guys like Lieberman (do you watch the Daily Show--he praised Barack big time in 2006 when Joe needed reelection himself) who denigrate Obama's inexperience just get on my nerves, nate.

No arguments, man. Vote your conscience. I don't think race is on your mind but i DO think it's THE CENTRAL ISSUE. Just my opinion, man.

That Paris Hilton campaign ad wasn't hateful or fearmongering. It was a humerous attempt to imply that Obama was all style and no substance. That's a perfectly normal accusation in American politics. I find nothing offensive about it whatsoever. If you're that upset about the ad, you haven't been following politics much.

Attacking Obama's experience is perfectly legitimate. Democrats should feel free to try to attack Palin on the same issue. That's what you do in politics. I'm truly confounded by your anger here.

And they have, only to be accused of sexism by the McCain camp .

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

For the record, nate, the only folks I feel residual anger for are Bill and to a lesser extent, Hilary.

I knew she was a shape shifter but he lost his honorary brother status with me.

McCain and Barack will each do whatever's politically expedient to get elected. They fire anybody on their side who missteps. They'll deny religious affiliation with any loose canon's who they may have befriended the past 20 or so years. McCaian will find a hermaphordite (I stole this from Colbert Report or the Daily Show, I forget) just to make HIS history.

Politics gets on my damn nerves. Just glad to see folks posting, man.

I'm out.

[dobrojim]

I wish both candidates would stop with the references to "clean coal",
like such a thing actually exists.

BTW - re the economy, according to an op ed piece in Friday's WashPost
by an economics scholar, in the past 40 years, net monthly job creation during
dem admins was ~2.5 million, during 'pub admins ~1.5 million. Stock market does
better during Dem admins too. I wonder if the public at large realizes this.

[nate33]

Attacking Obama's experience is perfectly legitimate. Democrats should feel free to try to attack Palin on the same issue. That's what you do in politics. I'm truly confounded by your anger here.

And they have, only to be accused of sexism by the McCain camp .

No, they're being accused of sexism for attacking her ability to be a VP with 5 children.

The McCain camp response to attacks on Palin's experience is to attack Obama's experience.

I pointed this out on the Current Events board the day Palin was selected for VP. It was a stroke of genius because it would goad the Democrats to attack her experience, which would ultimately force people to consider Obama's experience. Neither one of them have extensive experience, but one of them is running for President while the other is merely running for Vice President. At least the Vice Presidency has some leeway for on the job training.

[nate33]

I wish both candidates would stop with the references to "clean coal",
like such a thing actually exists.

BTW - re the economy, according to an op ed piece in Friday's WashPost
by an economics scholar, in the past 40 years, net monthly job creation during
dem admins was ~2.5 million, during 'pub admins ~1.5 million. Stock market does
better during Dem admins too. I wonder if the public at large realizes this.

I'd be curious if that study accounts for the lag time between inauguration and policy implementation. Reagan and both Bush's took office during recessions that they could not possibly have stopped. There's also the "peace dividend" factor. Clinton benefited from a world of relative peace and prosperity thanks to the end of the Cold War and Bush 41's handling of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

Ultimately, there are too many mitigating factors for such analysis to be all that useful.