In 2004, I was fired up. I thought (and still think) President Bush wasn't fit to run our country, and I was happy to get into an educated debate with anyone who crossed my path. Even though I thought John Kerry wasn't the best choice in the world, I still figured he was a better option than Bush. I was hopeful that Americans would see that the previous four years were not great by any stretch of the imagination and that Bush is a moron.
After the election, I couldn't believe that Bush won again. I was both baffled by, and disappointed in, my fellow Americans. I felt defeated. More than anything, it left me jaded. I didn't feel like talking politics anymore, and I've made a conscious effort to refrain from getting emotionally involved in this election, since it's evident to me that the Democrats got it right with Obama and Biden. It's time for a change, and I believe that both of them are more than qualified. I watched only bits and pieces of the Democratic National Convention, most notably including Michelle Obama's speech (which I thought was very good) and Barack's speech (which I predictably thought was awesome).
That said, I wanted to be fair, to see what both sides had to say, and certainly to see who the hell Sarah Palin is. So I flipped on the RNC last night. I shouldn't have done that because all it did was wake a sleeping giant. I found Rudy Giuliani to be unbelievably smug and difficult to look at.
I found Sarah Palin to be an attack dog puppet with pretty face and a good speechwriter. She's kind of like Spike's son Tyke on Tom & Jerry, who does all the barking while Spike hangs out watching. And I didn't realize she was a mother until last night. As expected, both Giuliani and Palin (and other RNC speakers) stretched the truth about Obama's record, Palin's record, and McCain's record. Thankfully someone else has done the research on that one.Instead of outlining their own party's agenda or policies, Giuliani or Palin spent much of their time attacking Obama. To me, it came across as petty, especially when "stay the course" hasn't worked for the last four years. "Maverick" or not, I haven't heard any discussion on how McCain plans to address the woeful economy that his fellow Republican got us into, so I'm curious as to how a McCain-Palin Republican administration would be any different than the previous regime. So far I haven't heard anything. Palin did explain that McCain is going to fight to keep jobs in the United States. No shit?
I also love how both Giuliani and Palin ripped Obama for being a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago. Really? I thought that was a little underhanded. First, I guarantee Obama helped more people than have ever lived in Wasilla, Alaska. Second, I don't think they have any notion of what a community organizer actually does. You see, Republicans, a community organizer is someone who helps those in the community who have lost their jobs or been the victims of failed governmental policies. Here is a description from Obama's Wikipedia page:
"After four years in New York City, Obama moved to Chicago to work as a community organizer for three years from June 1985 to May 1988 as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland (Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale) on Chicago's far South Side. During his three years as the DCP's director, its staff grew from 1 to 13 and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000, with accomplishments including helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens."What an asshole! How dare he work to help the poor, undereducated, and unemployed! And mostly minorities, no less. Has Sarah Palin even seen a minority, other than on TV?
Third, he was a community organizer when he was 24-26. When Sarah Palin was the same age, she was a fucking sportscaster, and a shitty one at that. I guess what you do in your mid 20s only matters if you help people. Nevermind that, after being a community organizer, Obama then went to Harvard Law School, where he was elected the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review -- arguably the most prominent position a law student can have. Nevermind that he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law. Nevermind that he directed Illinois Project Vote in 1992, which registered 150,000 previously unregistered African-Americans in Illinois. Nevermind that he taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School, one of the top law schools in the world. Nevermind that he worked for a civil rights law firm. But Palin, who, if you didn't know, is a mother, backed into the Alaskan statehouse by running against the least popular governor in Alaskan history.
In addition, Palin seems to think that 20 months as the Governor of the 47th most populous -- and by far the most isolated -- state is somehow better experience than Obama's time in the state legislature (where his constituency was larger than the population of Alaska) and as a U.S. Senator from the fifth most populous state. Just because she sold the old Governor's plan on eBay doesn't make her fit to run our country as soon as John McCain inevitably keels over in the Oval Office. Even her fellow Alaskans aren't impressed. Speaking of which, how the hell is Todd Palin going to go to and from Washington, DC when he gets an itchin' for racing sled dogs or snowmobiles? I'm guessing he's not going to be flying commercial.
Neither Palin nor Giuliani really laid out any specific economic solutions, other than to tout traditional Republican fiscal policy (less taxes, less spending, less government) -- you know, because trickle down economics worked so well in the '80s, and then again in this decade. Oddly, Palin didn't really discuss environmental issues, probably because her largely unpopular environmental stances have gained her the nickname "The Killa from Wasilla." When discussing her tenure as the mighty mayor of Wasilla, she failed to mention her stance on censorship and banning books that don't conform to her political and social views. At least she didn't try to fire the town librarian for refusing to ban books. Oh wait. (As my wife will tell you, and as the Librarians Against Palin website demonstrates, you do not fuck with librarians when it comes to free access of information.) She kept her mouth shut about the fact that she opposes government funding of sex education, which is terribly ironic given the fact that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. (I wonder if Bristol even knew what a condom was.) Palin also failed to mention her reactionary (read: much further right than most Republicans) abortion stance, which would prohibit nearly ANY abortion, even in instances of rape or incest (which Cindy McCain has already outwardly disagreed with), or her trigger-happy gun control stance, which I assume is that every man, woman, and child should be given an AK-47 with which to shoot polar bears and homosexuals from planes.
Look, I don't know what the coming two months will hold, and I'm sure both sets of candidates will nail down their stances even further and debate each other a few times, but the only real message I got last night from the GOP was one of negativity and cynicism, and not one of solutions and change.
Posts
41 comments:
What has Obama accomplished? I'm glad that you, from your northside condo, are so supportive of the southern half of Cook County. They are a great asset! Who doesn't love the 10.5 % sales tax in place so that the north-siders can pay for the south side folks to enjoy all the "grape drink" they want?
Obama hasn't accomplished anything at any level, other than getting himself elected.
You are dissing Rudy? WTF? He has accomplished more in his life than Obama ever will.
I'm glad that you are a liberal. What troubles me is your lack of Ivy League education. How can you be a true white collar liberal with degrees from Indiana University? You have a pretty weak liberal elite resume.
Perhaps if you were half black like Obama, you could have went to Harvard Law School.
Failed government policies... My ass. Where in the Constitution does it say that the government is responsible for anybody? I hope that you are paying tax rates at the pre-Bush cut levels. Bush-cut, that sounds funny.
So sad for you my friend.
Why don't you devote some of your blog to discussing Joe Biden's horrible law school grades, plagiarism, and resume stretching? You seem interested in comparing Palin to Obama and discussing Obama's grades. Why don't you compare apples to apples - Palin to Biden, and why didn't you discuss Biden's horrible grades since you discussed Obama's high marks?
What about what Biden said about Obama needing "on the job training" if he were elected President? Is Biden an idiot or a liar? Both? Well, we know he is a liar, he has proven that in the past.
I recommend reading My Grandfather's Son by Justice Thomas to get an idea of who Biden really is.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE3DB143FF93BA2575AC0A961948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
I do think Obama is a decent human being.
Wow. A bit racist are we?
When did I ever say that a liberal has to have an Ivy League education? I love how conservatives are trying to paint an Ivy League education as a bad thing. Probably because their presidential candidate was almost last in his class at the Naval Academy only after his daddy got him in, and their vice presidential candidate is a Vandal.
I want a President who is smarter than me. But then again, I'm sure you could've graduated top 10% from Harvard Law and been elected the editor-in-chief of the law review.
If cheating on your wife or clinging to the fact that you happened to be mayor of NYC during the worst moment in American history are accomplishments, then, yes, Rudy has accomplished more in his life than Obama.
Also, your precious Bush administration has managed to get us into a second Vietnam, spend trillions of dollars, and drag our economy into the shitter. Maybe we should stay the course!
And for the record, I don't mind paying more taxes if it goes to help others. I am, after all, a liberal, which means I think that the government should help its citizens rather than fail them.
I don't think the Biden plagiarism thing is that big of a deal. He admitted it. When I was in law school and working on the law journal, there were many instances of both law school professors and students who did not properly cite sources. All you do to fix it is drop a footnote citing the source. Much of law review articles are drawn from other sources.
On the grades issue, I think we can all agree that Obama is the only one of the four who had impressive grades.
I'm glad you know so much about the economy. The fact of the matter is, it is very strong. You probably don't know much about the business world though. Let me guess, English or History major?
I'd love to disagree with you in a rational and civil manner, but I'm afraid that by taking a contrary stand I'll be associated with the racist remarks of the other dissenters. So for now I'll agree to disagree and wait for you to go back to being funny rather than wrong!
Bird, I would only accuse you of being racist if you made loaded comments about south siders enjoying "grape drink" or comments like "if you were half black like Obama, you could have went to Harvard Law School." I agree, I can't wait to get back to being funny. Sometimes I just get worked up, and I like to write. Hence, posts like this.
Dan Grogg, please tell me how in God's name the economy is "very strong." You don't have to have a business degree to know that foreclosures are at or above Depression levels, the price of gas is at an all-time high and escalating (which means that everything else is more expensive), retail spending is down, travel is down, and banks are failing. I guess my paltry history degree means that I don't understand the word "rescession."
A recession is 2 quarters in a row of negative growth. We are not in one. Gas prices have went down significantly as of lately and are lower than Jimmy Carter levels if one considers inflation. Things are nowhere near depression level in any way. I suggest you ask a member of the "greatest generation" about the Great Depression in comparison to now.
You have been drinking the liberal kool-aid too long. Or perhaps you are hanging with your non-productive citizen friends on the southside enjoying too much "grape drink."
I'd love to ask a member of the Greatest Generation about the Great Depression, except they're all dead because they couldn't afford health care. Zing!
Anyway, I'm not saying that our current economic woes rival those of the Great Depression. Obviously there is not a 25% unemployment rate. However, foreclosures are at or above Depression levels. Here is an article quoting Federal Reserve Board chairman Ben Bernanke and another article by William Emmons, who is an economist with the Fed's St. Louis branch and appears to be a laissez faire economist.
And I don't know where you live, but gas prices haven't gone down here in a long while, and certainly not "significantly," unless you consider $4.49 to $4.39 to be significant.
Also, according to at least some economists, we're in a recession. Obviously some economists disagree as to whether we're technically in a recession or not, but no one's saying the economy is strong.
I'm happy to go back and forth with you, but cool it on the "grape drink" comments. It undermines your credibility and makes you sound like a jackass.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-04-28-economy-survey-recession_N.htm
This article is from April 28th aka over 4 months ago.
Oh my God, you're right! I'm voting for McCain.
Good night.
Also, if people are too stupid to understand that the big discounts they got up front on their mortgages would have to be paid for at some point, maybe they shouldn't own a house in the first place. I mean seriously, why in the fuck are we bailing dumbasses and the banks who duped them out? I wouldn't even say the banks duped them... All they had to do was read their mortgage before signing it. If you buy something you can't afford, you can't keep it. Duh. I suppose your bleeding heart believes that we should help all of those "folks" who sit around their "kitchen tables" worrying about paying the mortgage on the house they never should have purchased in the first place. These people couldn't afford their houses originally, the country should not help them to keep them.
We have the richest "poor" in the world. Nobody starves in America. The government should stop this transfer payment crap and let everyone fend for themselves (besides those who can't).
There are a lot of things I would like to have but can't afford. If I sign a purchase agreement/loan on a Maybach (which I can't afford) and the bank repo's it and I have to get an Accord, that is okay. It is okay for these people to get their houses repo'd and to have to move to apartments or houses within their means.
Cry me a river.
I've typed and erased a response to both Dan and Lemar various times. I'll preface my remarks by saying that I recently decided to vote for McCain for a multitude of reason, most of which are not due to economic factors although I believe he will do better with the economy than Obama. Now to my thoughts.
Dan, you're wrong if you think the economy is good. Current policy has worsened the situation by having taxpayers subsidize bank investors, instead of allowing the banks to fail. Worse things could be on the horizon. You can debate who is at fault, or what policy will fix the economy but there is no debate as to the current state.
As to Palin, she may not be the most qualified VP candidate ever but people can relate to her. She espouses certain ideals as to family values, and falls short of perfect execution. I can relate to that. It's why I spend some Friday's in the St. John's confessional. Regardless of her policy stances, of which I mainly agree, she became a sympathetic figure with the attacks that she received shortly after the announcement. Rumors flew, and most were proved false (see Trig is Bristol's baby). She isn't going to win over Hillary voters, but she can win undecideds. Amercicans generally come to the support of sympathetic figures. Objectively, you have to admit that Biden did not get the same rash of criticism when there are issues of shady hedge fund deals, and lobbyist money going to his son's law firm. Maybe it's because the press assumed those were known items, and Palin was new on the scene.
Logical and intelligent people can disagree on who to vote for this election, but when racist comments are thrown around it makes all of us McCain supporters look like shit. I hope this election isn't decided by race at all. McCain can win on the issues. Contrary to the convention crowd, most of us don't wear cowboy hats and bad outfits.
Bird, thanks for an intelligent, non-racist response. Here are my thoughts:
-I don't think McCain's economic plan is better for the economy than Obama's. History tells us that the economy is better off during Democratic administrations, due in part to Democratic tax cuts for the lower and middle classes, rather than just for the rich. (See recent NY Times article by former vice chairman of the Fed) Trickle down doesn't work.
-As for Palin, I do agree that many people can relate to her, which is certainly a strength. I'm just not sure we know enough about her yet. These next two months are going to be the hardest in her life because everything she's ever done will be under the microscope, including some pretty controversial (and unpopular) views on abortion, the environment, sex education in schools, banning books in public libraries, etc. To be honest, the thought of someone with her views as our VP or President scares the shit out of me. I am very interested to see the VP debate on 10/2.
-As far as the "attacks" on her family, I thought those were mainly related to Bristol being pregnant. (See 3rd paragraph of this article) I could be wrong, though. Also, it's not like Bristol would have been able to hide her baby bump (she is 5 months pregnant).
-I think you're probably right about Biden not getting as much criticism because he is a known quantity.
Honestly, I think McCain has a tightrope to walk. On one hand, he claims to be a "maverick" who wants to shake up Washington, but on the other hand, he has to be careful not to alienate his Republican base. On one hand, he claims that he will work with both parties, but on the other hand, his policies are too far right for Democratic support.
It'll be an interesting two months.
Turns out I AM weak.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080905/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy
See, I'm so weak I can't even post a damn link. Here it is: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080905/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy
I honestly don't know enough about historical changes in the economic cycles in relation to political regimes to comment intenlligently. I do know however that large scale changes in the economy take time to filter through, and aren't as immediate. For instance tax cuts for corporate business may spur investment in technologies that don't yeild productivity results for years. The regime may be different at that point. I'm not disputing your assertion, but offering that it may not be a direct result as the correlation might imply.
I fully support a free market, although it is impossible to perfectly acheive. Charging "windfall profit" taxes is wholly un-American. Find some other way to acheive the tax cuts, but taxing big oil is just going to cause rises in price to acheive already slim profit margins, not dollars! That isn't going to help anyone. It is political pandering and hollow rhetoric, IMO. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to help the poor and working class, but handing out more discretionary income is not the way to do it. Building a strong economy through corporate investment and production/technology gains is textbook economics. Taxing business owners leads to less investment. IMO that is what will create sustainable jobs and raise the quality of life for all.
I would love to see, if only once, a politician suggest cutting government spending as a means to tax reduction rather than raising taxes on some other faction of the economy. I like that McCain has earmark reduction as part of his plan. Yes, I know it is ironic that Palin took earmarks, but people can change. Right?
Hidden in the Palin nomination is the process used to select her--practically none at all. We're talking about a candidate for the most powerful office in the history of the universe--McCain--making a from-the-hip choice on a running mate--arguably the most crucial decision he will make prior to the election. There seems to have been practically no vetting of Palin at all--almost as if it were an impulse pick. If McCain will pick Palin on feel, what else will he do on feel? What else will he fail to properly investigate? That reflects upon McCain's decision-making and is accordingly a matter of serious concern. He reportedly also has a hair-trigger temper. Can't blame the guy, hell, he was tortured, but I get the feeling Iran might piss us off over the next four years. Otherwise, the media has ignored McCain, so there really isn't a whole lot to question thus far.
As for Obama... how are we going to pay for all these lofty proposals? Why is it America's role to shower largesse on the world's downtrodden? Why should we bother (as he said he would) with diplomacy with the Iranian President, who has openly and repeatedly averred his desire to destroy us? What purpose is served by coddling to the man who was one of the terrorist captors occupying our embassy in Tehran in 1979? Obama could've inflated a fleet of zeppelins with all the hot air he's expelled thus far. Can we get some actual, workable, rational plans detailing how exactly he would accomplish this stuff?
As for his creds, being one, I know a lot of lawyers, and over half of them are full of two things: (1) shit and (2) themselves. Obama, gifted and brilliant a legal mind as he may be, hasn't ever run anything. The nation is vast, and the world is a virulent, chaotic place, not merely a community in need of organization. Further, do you really want a scholar running a nation?
Bird,
I used to think the same thing about cycles and what not, but when the economy slows every time there is a Republican president and gets better during Democratic regimes, it's hard to argue that it's just the cyclical nature of economics.
The New York Times article I linked to in a previous post analyzes economic prosperity under both parties since 1948. From what historical data shows, putting more money in the hands of lower and middle class Americans does more to boost the economy than putting more money in the hands of the rich and corporations.
For nearly all of my life, we have been under Republican economic policy. The '80s, under Reagan's "voodoo economics," saw the divide between rich and poor increase substantially (while Reagan poured money into national defense to outspend the Russians). The '90s, under Clinton, were a time of prosperity. The '00s, under Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and big business, have obviously been plagued by economic woes (while Bush has poured trillions of dollars into an unpopular war). I appreciate "textbook economics," but I'm not sure textbooks always provide real world solutions. If they did, supply side economics (aka trickle down, aka voodoo) would work, but obviously it doesn't.
Barry,
Yes, I do want a scholar running our nation. I want someone with analytical skills who can make a well-informed, rational decision.
I invite diplomacy, rather than shooting from the hip.
Has John McCain ever run anything? I'm not asking that to incite anything. I honestly just don't know. While I obviously realize Obama was not a governor or a mayor, Obama did run the Harvard Law Review. As a former EIC myself, I know that running a law review is not easy. As you said, a lot of lawyers are full of themselves, so you can imagine that a lot of law students are the same way. From my experience, managing a law review is 95% managing people and competing ideas and interests and only about 5% editing. I imagine it was harder for him at Harvard than it was for me at a measly Big Ten school. He also directed the Illinois Project Vote campaign in 1992.
But you're right: the big gripe about Obama is that he hasn't "run" anything major. Neither had JFK. But it's not like Obama's just some Joe off the street. He is a U.S. Senator, and he was a state legislator for the better part of a decade before that. If he ran for Illinois Governor in 2004 instead of the Senate, I bet he would have beat Blagojavich (not that two members of the same party would run against each other). I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't doubt that he has the ability to lead and make well-reasoned decisions. I believe in him (not in a false idol kind of way), and it's been a long time since I've actually believed in a politician.
Since Reagan, presidents have had much larger hands in economic policy than before. I'd prefer them being hands off and letting the market dictate where to invest and where to create jobs. One of the great things about Clinton's early tenure is that America had one of the largets R&D tax credits in the world. Yes, that meant putting more money in the hands of corporations that spurred the great technolgy growth and the prosperous times. It wasn't cutting taxes and handing money back to the lower and middle class. In fact he took a position of lowering the debt rather than handing out money via tax cuts (EITC aside). Additionally, the gap between rich and poor widened even more during his tenure. Being a Democrat does not mean that Obama has the same economic policy that Clinton did. In fact, they're vastly different.
When a candidate proposes creating what is essentially a success tax on one particular segment of the econcomy, the market isn't allowed to work properly. If Obama wants to raise money through taxing fuel, charge the consumer more not the producer. I'll admit my ignorance on Pigovian taxes up until recently, and I won't try to act as an expert but check out Greg Mankiw's blog. It is explained in the Pigou Club post.
http://www.gregmankiw.blogspot.com/
McCain's no golden goose. I would've been more interested in Romney or hey, how about Ron Paul? We've got two bad choices for President, a theme which seems to be building every four years.
What the hell are we going to do about illegal immigration? Anything? Our southern states are inundated with illegals benefiting from the tax dollars of our collective Uncle Sam. One of McCain's nicknames is John McAmnesty, for the illegal immigration amnesty bill he sponsored. Sure, give 'em all amnesty. Why not? Why bother actually ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAWS? So far as I've seen, nobody has even bothered with the question--it's as if it's no longer even debatable.
How does Obama plan to stand up to The Levant? Better than Clinton, one would hope. The argument can be (and has been) made that while Clinton was busy focusing on the economy, bin Laden was busy planning 9/11. Surely we can't tolerate a rerun of that sort of ostrich behavior.
GMYH, since you haven't had many supportive comments yet on this post, I just want to say--nicely done. I agree with you on pretty much all points.
Did you just state that running a law review was in any way comparable to running the country? 90% of law students don't even give a shit about their school's law review. You can't be serious.
Hey Andrew,
Were you the editor of a law review? Can I have your autograph?
Law Review = Resume Builder
As a graduate of the Naval Academy, John McCain would have been an officer. I would say running a military unit would be a bit more relevant/important than running a law review. I'm pretty sure Prof's control the law reviews anyway. Either way, they write the only articles in them that ever get read by anyone at other schools/judges.
GMYH = Book smart, everything else stupid.
Anonymous, please fuck your mother. Keep the baby because that's what you believe in. And then do me a favor, will ya? Name it Trig. Get fucked. I never said that running a law review was like running a country. I actually said that it wasn't like being a governor or mayor. I said that it takes people management skills, which it does. And I honestly asked what John McCain has run. If the only thing he's been in charge of in his life was a Navy platoon 40 years ago, then I think we can all agree that he wasn't too great at that. In sum, please go fuck your mother before posting anonymous comments that misconstrue what I said.
"If the only thing he's been in charge of in his life was a Navy platoon 40 years ago, then I think we can all agree that he wasn't too great at that." - GMYH
You were the editor of the law review? LMAO.
I hope you stub your toe.
GMYH,
I am also going to agree with you and Beth. I think your post was pretty fabu.
Hey Dumbass,
Does it occur to you that the reason the economy is historically better under Democrats is that the prosperity has finally trickled down? It isn't a waterfall.
Um, no, Anonymous, that had not occurred to me. I assume it's because the general Democrat tax policy is to give tax cuts to the lower and middle classes, which puts more money in their pockets, thus giving them more disposable income to spend (and thereby increasing economic wealth), rather than tax cuts for the wealthy, which has historically increased the divide between rich and poor, rather than put more money into the economy. Both parties give tax cuts to businesses in one way or another. Obviously I can't say that for sure that your trickle down theory is wrong, but I would love for you to give me some real-world support or study for your theory before I buy it. Thanks for calling me a dumbass, though. I wish you a pleasant Sunday.
Jimmy Carter did a great job with the economy.
Tax cuts for the wealthy? Do you mean tax cuts for everyone? That is what Republicans do. They do not just give tax cuts to those who don't contribute much in the way of tax dollars anyway. They give them to everyone, especially to the people who pay most of the taxes. Does the government really have a right to 50% of some incomes?
www.worldnetdaily.com
www.newsmax.com
If you are looking for the real news, I recommend checking out these sites. They tell it as it is without right or left bias.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=305508174916939
Post a Comment