News What are the Key Factors for Victory in the 2008 Presidential Election?

[LowlyPion]

Watch the video of Meet the Press, and watch McCain's answer when he was asked to respond to Rush Limbaugh's claim that Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama was racial. McCain had a perfect opportunity to put himself above race-baiting and really swat one out of the park by denouncing Limbaugh's statements. He did not do so.

McCain is so diminished by his lust for power that Gollum looks like a paragon of self-control in comparison.

His inability to remember George Schultz when he tried to offer up the 5 Secretaries of State that are supposed to be endorsing him was also apparently a monument to his growing senility too.

 

[LowlyPion]

Watch the video of Meet the Press,...

He did himself no favors with that appearance.

He merely reinforced what everyone already knows ... that he is out of touch in his lame attempts to ignore the polls, in his blind defense of the vapid and incompetent VP choice of Palin, in the growth of his senility, in his inability to admit mistakes, and his dismissal of the legions of once loyal supporters that have decided against his candidacy on its merits.

Sadly it looks like the only friend he really has at this point is George Bush, the man that once savaged him with negative false advertising and robocalls in his own self serving ascent to power.

 

[Astronuc]

An interesting inside look at the McCain Campaign from the NY Times Magazine:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/magazine/26mccain-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

This is a great article with respect to the evolution of McCain's campaign, and the input of the different people and how they have shaped the candidate and campaign. I see McCain getting pulled and tugged, probably not in directions that he would himself want to go - hence the appearance of being erratic.

It covers the campaign suspension (which wasn't really) when the first Paulson rescue plan was announced, and the selection of Palin.


There is an interesting paragraph which concerns me not about McCain, but about Obama.

But to McCain, that Obama failed to do so carries a deeper significance. Authenticity means everything to a man like McCain who, says Salter, “has an affinity for heroes, for men of honor.” Conversely, he reserves special contempt for those he regards as arrogant phonies. A year after Barack Obama was sworn into the Senate, Salter recalls McCain saying, “He’s got a future, I’ll reach out to him” — as McCain had to Russ Feingold and John Edwards, and as the liberal Arizona congressman Mo Udall had reached out to McCain as a freshman. McCain invited Obama to attend a bipartisan meeting on ethics reform. Obama gratefully accepted —but then wrote McCain a letter urging him to instead follow a legislative path recommended by Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate. Feeling double-crossed, McCain ordered Salter to “send him a letter, brush him back a little.” Since that experience, says a Republican who has known McCain for a long time, “there was certainly disdain and dislike of Obama.”

If Obama accepted McCain's invitation, then it seems inappropriate to then revoke a promise (agreement) in favor of a more partisan approach. I'd like to know more about that and Reid's approach as opposed to McCain bipartisan approach.

A main concern here is whether or not there will be sufficient independence between Obama and the congressional leaders, Reid and Pelosi. IMO, there was insufficient independence between the Bush administration and the congressional leaders: Lott, Frist, Hastert, DeLay, and that has allowed for the irresponsible fiscal mismanagement of the US government, lack of appropriate regulation, particularly of the financial industry, and a failed foreign policy, including the faulty war in Iraq.

 

[LowlyPion]

A main concern here is whether or not there will be sufficient independence between Obama and the congressional leaders, Reid and Pelosi.

My thinking is that Obama will be the one with the mandate in the aftermath of this election. And I think he is at this point his own man. While these other leaders in Congress have been supportive, they will have more pressure now to accede to Obama than he will to accede to them. And whatever majority they may enjoy will in large part be as a result of his coattails.

 

[Astronuc]

My thinking is that Obama will be the one with the mandate in the aftermath of this election. And I think he is at this point his own man. While these other leaders in Congress have been supportive, they will have more pressure now to accede to Obama than he will to accede to them. And whatever majority they may enjoy will in large part be as a result of his coattails.

I hope so. I'm waiting for the evidence. My concern was about the deference Obama showed Reid, but perhaps that was expected since Obama was a freshman junior senator and Reid was/is the majority leader.

I have the same reservation about Obama and McCain. The president needs to be independent from congress. Congress (the legislative branch) and the executive branch are supposed serve as checks and balances against each other, and the supreme court should be in independent check on those two. Frankly, I don't see sufficient impartiality or indepenced among the three institutions.

There is way too much at stake - more so now than any time in the last two decades, and perhaps since World War II.

 

[turbo]

The president needs to be independent from congress. Congress (the legislative branch) and the executive branch are supposed serve as checks and balances against each other, and the supreme court should be in independent check on those two. Frankly, I don't see sufficient impartiality or indepenced among the three institutions.

There is way too much at stake - more so now than any time in the last two decades, and perhaps since World War II.

Bush has been FAR too independent of Congress, refusing to administer laws as enacted, and violating others blithely. A Democratic Congress can and should serve as a check on a Democratic administration, even if they didn't have the guts to stand up to Bush/Cheney.

 

[Gokul43201]

There is an interesting paragraph which concerns me not about McCain, but about Obama.

I read those letters a few months ago and was concerned too. I put some of that down to Obama being a newbie, trying to suck up to the bigshots in his party.

The letters: http://obama.senate.gov/letter/060206-sen_obama_and_sen_mccain_exchange_letters_on_ethics_reform/

 

[Astronuc]

Bush has been FAR too independent of Congress, refusing to administer laws as enacted, and violating others blithely. A Democratic Congress can and should serve as a check on a Democratic administration, even if they didn't have the guts to stand up to Bush/Cheney.

Well in that sense yes. But Bush and congress tacitly ignored their mutual obligation to check the other, and in that sense were quite mutually dependent.

 

[LowlyPion]

I hope so. I'm waiting for the evidence. My concern was about the deference Obama showed Reid, but perhaps that was expected since Obama was a freshman junior senator and Reid was/is the majority leader.

That's my reading of the situation. And I think he was right to an extent to be careful about being co-opted by McCain - a potential candidate for President at the time. What if Obama had joined with McCain and appeared as a follower at that point?

I think McCain suffers from grappling with literalism and chooses to believe his own narcissistic fantasies. Look for instance at this notion that Obama agreed to town hall debates and all Obama said was that

he found the notion “appealing” but then did little to make it happen.

Not exactly a betrayal, but McCain chooses to take it as one insofar as he goes on to opine that Obama has no honor. Unfortunately it is McCain that chose to think that the politician's answer "that's appealing" or that's interesting ... let's study it" rather than be pinned to an agenda not of his making - answers that I have seen him give over this campaign cycle I might add - somehow rises to the level of betrayal as opposed to prudence in making informed and considered choices.

Clinton - in his best moments - and his worst - was gifted in speaking such that both sides of an issue thought that he supported their view - in believing what they want to believe. Apparently McCain after all his years in Congress chooses to play the innocent when it comes to the ways of Washington.

 

[Astronuc]

I read those letters a few months ago and was concerned too. I put some of that down to Obama being a newbie, trying to suck up to the bigshots in his party.

The letters: http://obama.senate.gov/letter/060206-sen_obama_and_sen_mccain_exchange_letters_on_ethics_reform/

IMO, Obama is sticking with the process, and IMO the process isn't working the way it should - hence the crisis in which we find ourselves.

Obviously, we don't know Obama's thinking or that of anyone else in Washington, but we can look at what has happened and what is happening, and wonder.

It would have been worthwhile to step outside the system and process and do something different - like a bipartisan meeting - in order to review S. 2180, the Honest Leadership Act, and see if it really addressed the issue at hand.


I'm currently reading Woodward's, The War Within, a narrative about the secret Whitehouse history from 2006-2008 (with a lot of relection to 2003-2006). In 2006, Secretary of State Rice and NS Advisor Stephen Hadley initiated an independent review of the strategy in Iraq. Simultaneously, Gen. Peter Pace and the JCS initiated a separate independent review through a multi-branch 'Council of Colonels'. Both reviews were done without the knowledge of DOD Sec Rumsfeld, who surely would have opposed both. It's unfortunate that such reviews or independent assessments had not been done 3 or 4 years earlier. That is how the government should function.

The fact that one person, Rumsfled, obstructed the functional process is appalling.

The whole point of the Constitution is a functioning government - not the dysfunctional mess that we now have!

 

[Astronuc]

Clinton - in his best moments - and his worst - was gifted in speaking such that both sides of an issue thought that he supported their view - in believing what they want to believe. Apparently McCain after all his years in Congress chooses to play the innocent when it comes to the ways of Washington.

I have a problem with duplicity - which seemed to be a characteristic of Clinton.

I can see two sides of a conflict or issue, but I would not want to mislead either side that I simultaneously agree with their side and not the other.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

MR. TODD: You know, you look at these early voting numbers. Georgia's one of these states, along with North Carolina and Florida, that we're seeing early voting, and because they're states that have to keep track of these statistics, we know exactly how many African-American ballots are being turned in, how many Dem--and it is through the roof. There are--turnout among African-Americans might actually be somewhere between 95 and 100 percent in some of these places, in some of these states. And, in fact, we're seeing this shrinkage of a lead in Georgia for Senator McCain. It's actually got some folks wondering is South Carolina now in single digits? What's going on in Mississippi that this prediction of big African-American turnout that everybody thought might happen, we're seeing play out so far in some of these early voting states.[continued]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27388251/page/5/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think the entire SE sector is in play. Look at the map of black demographics posted earlier.

Does anyone know the typical turnout for eligible black voters? I think it is something like 30%.

Hah!

 

[LowlyPion]

McCain looks lost on "Meet the Press"

If John McCain was hoping to counteract Colin Powell's stunning Barack Obama endorsement by doing "Meet the Press" a week later, I'm sure he's disappointed. McCain seemed lost and not entirely convinced of his own arguments in an uninspiring sit-down with host Tom Brokaw.

The worst moment, of course, was when he boasted of having the support of five former secretaries of state, but couldn't remember all of them. He left out George Shultz, then interrupted Brokaw in the middle of his next question to give Shultz a shout-out. He told Brokaw "the enthusiasm at almost all of our [events] is at a higher level than I've ever seen," a day after Obama drew 32 times as many people as McCain to an Albuquerque, N.M., rally, according to the Politico.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/?last_story=/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/10/26/mccain_mtp/

 

[LowlyPion]

I have a problem with duplicity - which seemed to be a characteristic of Clinton.

I can see two sides of a conflict or issue, but I would not want to mislead either side that I simultaneously agree with their side and not the other.

I suppose you can view it as duplicity, but I also think that being sufficiently fuzzy in negotiations between competing interests allows for the opportunity for both sides to find common footing in what may otherwise be a swamp. Adopting hardened positions with literal language offers less subsequent chance to soften and move to a solution. I believe that Clinton had those skills, that he also used to his detriment when it came to his own personal situation.

 

[LowlyPion]

A picture is worth a 100,000 votes ... in Denver.

 

[LowlyPion]

Et tu Lieberman?
Lieberman preparing for a soft landing of his own?

October 26, 2008

LIEBERMAN HASN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO HIMSELF... Joe Lieberman adopted the role of Republican attack dog early on, but as the election draws near, he's hoping the political world has a very short memory.

Lieberman, a self-proclaimed "independent Democrat" who was chosen by McCain to make the case against Obama at the Republican National Convention in early September, said his comments have been within bounds.

"When I go out, I say, 'I have a lot of respect for Sen. Obama. He's bright. He's eloquent.'"

My hunch is, Lieberman sees the direction of the political winds, and hopes to convince Democrats that while he's been a McCain sycophant, he's always been "respectful" towards Obama.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015376.php

 

[Astronuc]

I suppose you can view it as duplicity, but I also think that being sufficiently fuzzy in negotiations between competing interests allows for the opportunity for both sides to find common footing in what may otherwise be a swamp. Adopting hardened positions with literal language offers less subsequent chance to soften and move to a solution. I believe that Clinton had those skills, that he also used to his detriment when it came to his own personal situation.

Clinton's domestic policy was poor and his foreign policy worse, only to be superceded by Bush's poor performance. Clinton was mostly indolent, and Bush was just plain reckless and negligent.


In the meantime - Anchorage Daily News, Alaska's largest daily newspaper, endorses Obama.

Obama for president
http://www.adn.com/opinion/view/story/567867.html
Palin's rise captivates us but nation needs a steady hand

. . .
Sen. McCain describes himself as a maverick, by which he seems to mean that he spent 25 years trying unsuccessfully to persuade his own party to follow his bipartisan, centrist lead. Sadly, maverick John McCain didn't show up for the campaign. Instead we have candidate McCain, who embraces the extreme Republican orthodoxy he once resisted and cynically asks Americans to buy for another four years.

It is Sen. Obama who truly promises fundamental change in Washington. You need look no further than the guilt-by-association lies and sound-bite distortions of the degenerating McCain campaign to see how readily he embraces the divisive, fear-mongering tactics of Karl Rove. And while Sen. McCain points to the fragile success of the troop surge in stabilizing conditions in Iraq, it is also plain that he was fundamentally wrong about the more crucial early decisions. Contrary to his assurances, we were not greeted as liberators; it was not a short, easy war; and Americans -- not Iraqi oil -- have had to pay for it. It was Sen. Obama who more clearly saw the danger ahead.
. . .

 

[LowlyPion]

Clinton's domestic policy was poor and his foreign policy worse, only to be superceded by Bush's poor performance. Clinton was mostly indolent, and Bush was just plain reckless and negligent.

I don't quite see that as the case. I rather think Clinton was domestically capable and presided over an efficient fiscally responsible expansion in the economy.

Internationally I don't see that he was called upon by circumstance to have dealt with all that much. He certainly wasn't inclined to be so adventurously stupid as Bush has turned out to be. Now we have 8 years of domestic and foreign squandering to unwind ourselves from. 16 years of Clinton couldn't have been nearly so bad. But that is for another thread.

Insofar as the Clinton of today, I think his appearances with Obama in Florida will likely do some to sway the state and demonstrate generally the universal opposition to McCain by all but perhaps his family at this point.

 

[Astronuc]

I don't quite see that as the case. I rather think Clinton was domestically capable and presided over an efficient fiscally responsible expansion in the economy.

Clinton was a beneficiary of the 'irrational exhuberance', and it was during that period that Enron and WorldCom did their shenanigans only to collapse early in the Bush administration. Clinton did nothing for energy independence. He also benefitted from low oil prices.

Internationally I don't see that he was called upon by circumstance to have dealt with all that much.

Someone characterized his policy with respect to the Balkans, particularly Bosna-Herzagovna and Kosova as suffering from his indolence, his policy with respect to Russia was poor, and he didn't do a good job with respect of Afghanistan/Pakistan, or the ME in general.

 

[Astronuc]

McCain in Meet the Press

McCain says Bush failed in number of areas
Dismissing poll results, GOP candidate insists ‘we’re doing fine’ - and the economy is fundamentally strong

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27386775/

WATERLOO, Iowa - Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee, said Sunday that he was a proud Republican but believed the Bush administration had failed in a number of areas, asking voters to remember that “I’m not George Bush.”

In recent days, the McCain campaign has aggressively run away from Bush and his unpopularity with voters, blaming him for the economic downturn and a record national debt. In an interview with NBC News last week, McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, identified Bush’s unpopularity as the campaign’s most serious obstacle.

Speaking Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” McCain acknowledged that he has voted with Bush more than 90 percent of the time, but he said that on the most important issues — U.S. strategies in Iraq, climate change and the economy — “I was not popular in my own party.”
. . . .

It's really disingenuous for congresspersons to be pointing fingers at Bush. Congress passes the bills, which the president signs. Congress passes the budget and writes the tax laws, which Bush approves. Congress authorized Bush to use military force in Iraq. Congress repeatedly failed to check the president. Last time I looked - it's a too party system - and both parties failed.

“She’s a role model for millions and millions of Americans,” said McCain, who reacted sharply when Brokaw noted that he had spent much of his time “defending” Palin.

Maybe after this is over - McCain will come back to reality. Then again - that's a long shot.

 

[turbo]

Generally, citizens of the US hate congress in general and like their own congressional representatives. Rove et al know this, and they knew that they could leverage this. Vote for Bush's war - you're a patriot. Vote against it - you're soft on terrorism. Rove should has brought McCarthyism to the 21st century and has done it much more successfully than Tail-Gunner Joe ever hoped.

 

[LowlyPion]

The New York Times Editorial Board Endorsement of Obama - a pretty thorough excoriation of both McCain and Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opinion/24fri1.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

 

[Astronuc]

I wished Brokaw has asked McCain what he was planning to do after the election.


The earmarks are a small part of the budget, so eliminating them will have little impact. Nevertheless, they should be eliminated.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/favorfactory/favorfactory_2008/

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003948586_favorfactory14m.html

 

[turbo]

I wished Brokaw has asked McCain what he was planning to do after the election.

I wish that Brokaw had pressed McCain about his opinion regarding Limbaugh's assertion that Powell's endorsement of Obama was racially-motivated. McCain stiffed him, apparently in an attempt to hold onto the racist vote, and Brokaw let him off the hook. McCain could have helped himself with independents, moderate Republicans, and some older or more conservative Democrats by repudiating Limbaugh's poison, but he did not do so. With a little over a week to go to election day, Brokaw lobbed him a slow, straight, soft-ball, and McCain whiffed. McCain does not have the intelligence nor the temperament to be president - even his much-vaunted political acumen has left him.

Earlier, Brokaw also led into a question with a fawning wet-your-pants description of McCain's war service and gave him a beauty-pageant question on a par with "what have you taken away from this experience?" so McCain could fluff himself up. Are there any journalists left alive? Even Tim Russert could have done better and he was a milquetoast at best.

 

[mheslep]

...The earmarks are a small part of the budget, so eliminating them will have little impact. Nevertheless, they should be eliminated...

The few billions or so that earmark elimination would save missus the larger point (perhaps that's where you were going w/ 'Nevertheless'.) Huge, wasteful programs like farm subsidies owe their continued existence to the ability of farm state law makers to buy off others, who otherwise might know better, with some earmarked relative pocket change. So instead of law makers looking to find common ground on what is best for the country, they're deal makers. If earmarks go some major budget savings are possible.

 

[Astronuc]

The few billions or so that earmark elimination would save missus the larger point (perhaps that's where you were going w/ 'Nevertheless'.) Huge, wasteful programs like farm subsidies owe their continued existence to the ability of farm state law makers to buy off others, who otherwise might know better, with some earmarked relative pocket change. So instead of law makers looking to find common ground on what is best for the country, they're deal makers. If earmarks go some major budget savings are possible.

I agree on the farm subsidies, or any subsidy or tax credit. I believe subsidies and tax breaks/credits are not covered under 'earmarks'.



http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04112008/profile2.html

Bush set to veto $300 billion farm bill
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/09/MN1110JA53.DTL

Farm Bill Passes U.S. House With Veto-Proof Majority (Update2)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=arTUJ7kiO2Es&refer=us
By Alan Bjerga

May 14 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. House of Representatives passed a five-year, $289 billion farm bill with enough votes to override a presidential veto, making it more likely to become law.

The plan to boost food aid for the poor and keep U.S. farm subsidies largely intact was approved 318-106 in the House, more than the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto threatened yesterday by President George W. Bush. The president said the plan exceeds spending guidelines, distorts trade and subsidizes farmers as crop prices reach records.

. . .

McCain Opposes Farm Subsidy Bill
http://www.witn.com/politics/headlines/26338794.html

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- Republican presidential candidate John McCain opposes the $300 billion farm bill and subsidies for ethanol, positions that both supporters and opponents say might cost him votes he needs in the upper Midwest this November.

His Democratic rival, Barack Obama, is making a more traditional regional pitch: He favors the farm bill approved by Congress this year and subsidies for the Midwest-based ethanol industry. McCain instead has promised to open new markets abroad for farmers to export their commodities.

In his position papers, McCain opposes farm subsidies only for those with incomes of more than $250,000 and a net worth above $2 million. But he's gone further on the stump.

"I don't support agricultural subsidies no matter where they are," McCain said at a recent appearance in Wisconsin. "The farm bill, $300 billion, is something America simply can't afford."

McCain later described the measure, which is very popular throughout the Midwest, as "a $300 billion, bloated, pork-barrel-laden bill" because of subsidies for industries like ethanol.

It's not a stand that pleases Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa.

"I would not advise him to take that position," Grassley said. "For sure, he can't lose Missouri and that's in the upper Midwest. Could he lose Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin and still be elected president? Yes, but I wouldn't advise him to have that strategy."
. . . .

I agree with McCain.

Farm Bill's Subsidy Costs May Rise
Billions More Could Be Paid Through Little-Noticed Provision
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/20/AR2008052001581.html

A major new program in the recently enacted farm bill could increase taxpayer-financed payments to farmers by billions of dollars if high commodity prices decline to more typical levels, administration and congressional budget officials said yesterday.

The potential costs came to light as administration officials pored over details of the 673-page, $307 billion legislation. President Bush has promised to veto the measure, which he called "bloated." The House and Senate passed the bill by bipartisan margins large enough to override him unless dozens of lawmakers switch sides.
. . . .

Farm bill: making America fat and polluted, one subsidy at a time
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0423/p09s02-coop.html

San Francisco - At a time of soaring food prices, America's grocery bill is about to balloon. Congress is staggering toward completion of a nearly $300 billion farm bill that upholds subsidies for big farmers and food corporations – undermining vital efforts to make our food supply more healthful and sustainable, both environmentally and economically.

It's time to overhaul the government's approach to food and farming.

If the current measure passes (as it's slated to this Friday) Americans will shell out billions of dollars for farm subsidies that wreak havoc on our land and diets. These payments irresponsibly promote the consumption of cheap fatty foods, the depletion of soil and air through overuse of pesticides, and destructive farming practices.

Like farm bills past, this one also advances the removal of small farms, eroding the spirit and finances of rural communities across the US.

There is funding for conservation and nutrition programs, even allotments for innovative community food security projects that expand markets for small farmers while making food accessible to poor inner-city residents. But the subsidies for agribusiness – sometimes exceeding $15 billion a year – deepen the very problems these programs seek to remedy.

The core issue lies in the Commodity Title, which subsidizes large growers' production of corn, wheat, and other raw ingredients used in everything from food sweeteners to livestock feed to auto fuel. Supporting farmers to produce basic foodstuffs is a laudable policy, but today's subsidy system instead props up unsustainable growing practices and undermines the nation's health and its farming and food future.

Consider that 75 percent of subsidies go to a handful of commodities (mostly wheat, corn, and oilseeds) used as food additives, making highly processed junk food cheap – while fruits and vegetables and whole foods currently get no aid. Nearly 70 percent of farm subsidies go to the top 10 percent of the country's biggest growers – while America loses one farm every half an hour.
. . . .

Larger profitable ventures, especially those using wasteful practices, should not be receiving subsidies.

 

[mgb_phys]

Senator McConnell (kentucky) is looking nervous http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7690282.stm

he plays a tried and tested card, boasting of his ability to get funding for Kentucky projects, to "bring home the bacon". He warns that the loss of his hard-won clout in the US Senate would have huge financial consequences for the state.

"You've sent someone to Washington who has got to the top," he argued "and last year that meant $500m for the state of Kentucky."

What's the difference between a "pork-barrel project" and "bringing home the bacon"?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What's the difference between a "pork-barrel project" and "bringing home the bacon"?

Is it your State or not?

Palin was all for the bridge to nowhere as long as the Feds were paying for it.

 

[mheslep]

I agree on the farm subsidies, or any subsidy or tax credit. I believe subsidies and tax breaks/credits are not covered under 'earmarks'...

?? Correct. The theory is earmarks enable a subsidy prone legislature.

 

[Astronuc]

?? Correct. The theory is earmarks enable a subsidy prone legislature.

I was referring to the fact that earmarks are considered separate from subsidies and taxes credits/breaks/exemptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_(politics )

But then -

What's an Earmark? - http://www.slate.com/id/2139454/
No one knows for sure.

The U.S. government has earmarked $29 billion for pork-barrel projects this year*, according to a report released on Wednesday by Citizens Against Government Waste. The House appropriations committee provided its own numbers, which claim $17 billion worth of earmarks for 2006. What, exactly, is a congressional earmark?

No one can agree on the precise definition. In general, the word "earmark" refers to any element of a spending bill that allocates money for a very specific thing—a given project, say, or location, or institution. For example, if Congress passed a budget that gave a certain amount of money to the National Park Service as a whole, no one would consider it an earmark. But if Congress added a line to the budget specifying that some of that money must go toward the preservation of a single building—definitely an earmark.

* Congress to Spend Record $29 Bln on `Pork' Projects, Group Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=axS5RbjoqeI4&refer=us

So when John McCain is talking about ending 'earmarks' or 'pork barrel' spending, is he actually including subsidies, like those in the farm bill (and other bills), and tax breaks/credits/exemptions. If McCain is only referring to those things which Congress consider 'earmarks', then that will have not significant impact on the budget or deficit, but virtue of the fact the $30 billion is 1% of $3 trillion, or $3000 billion, which is approximately the proposed budget of fiscal 2009.

If McCain is planning to eliminate subsidies, then that will have a dramatic effect (assuming he becomes president)!

 

[OrbitalPower]

"Jonathan Alter: Anytime you build a road, anytime you build a school, anytime you try to create jobs, anytime you provide social security, you are redistributing wealth. And by the way, if we can redistribute wealth to greedy bankers, why can't we redistribute some to needy bankers."

Is obama like FDR? Alter says yes:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/189055/october-23-2008/jonathan-alter

 

[mgb_phys]

It would be cheaper to target the pork barrelling a bit more effectively.
California is never going to vote republican - so there is no point in sending any defence contracts there, similairly Texas isn't going to vote democrat if you build another Nasa HQ.
So you only need to pork barrel (sorry invest in under-resourced areas) in a few select marginal states - and even then only just in the run up to an election. You don't even have to acually deliver as long as the promises sound convincing.

 

[LowlyPion]

I think McCain is making a mistake in his current message in Dayton today.

He is calling for an even bigger military.

Bush has nearly destroyed the economy and undermined our hopes of being able to support the current military. The appeal to increase our combat presence seems particularly misguided.

I think we need to solve world problems not labor under the hubris to think we can smash them flat like a bully and pretend it's a solution. We cannot hope to support more Bush style adventurism with the shredded economic base that is becoming Bush's legacy.

 

[turbo]

McCain's family history, and indeed most of his personal history is rooted in the military, and he shrouds himself in that. It is no wonder that he wants a larger military - it's the only solution that he sees for "problems" in his black-and-white world. It would be cheaper to triple the size and the budget of our diplomatic corps and set them to work forging stronger alliances with other countries instead of trying to push them around with our weapons.

 

[Astronuc]

I think McCain is making a mistake in his current message in Dayton today.

He is calling for an even bigger military.

What about the 10's of thousands of mercenaries hired by the US government?

Bush has nearly destroyed the economy and undermined our hopes of being able to support the current military. The appeal to increase our combat presence seems particularly misguided.

In all fairness to Bush, he had a lot of help from the two-party congress. Bush didn't do this alone.

And there is tremendous culpability in the financial industry.

 

[LowlyPion]

In all fairness to Bush, he had a lot of help from the two-party congress. Bush didn't do this alone.

Forget being fair to Bush. He has stood for deregulation. He has enabled this unregulated Wall Street greed. He has stood for tax reduction. He has stood for fiscal irresponsibility. Those were his budgets. His deficits. His responsibility. That history would judge him harshly is no less than what he deserves.

The theory is that he is supposed lead. In that he has failed to avert the country from marching toward an abyss of economic chaos. He can't retire to Crawford soon enough I should think.

 

[mgb_phys]

He is calling for an even bigger military.

Bush has nearly destroyed the economy and undermined our hopes of being able to support the current military.

Wasn't that the lesson from winning the cold war?
Huge out of control military spending -> state goes bust -> privatise the banks -> become oil rich capitalists.

 

[mheslep]

Forget being fair to Bush. ...

It has nothing to do with being fair to Bush. It's about going forward, and not echoing a revisionist history which must lead to an unwise policy for who ever is in power.

 

[Astronuc]

It has nothing to do with being fair to Bush. It's about going forward, and not echoing a revisionist history which must lead to an unwise policy for who ever is in power.

True, but the point I wish to make is - congress (including both parties) has to change its (their) ways too!

 

[LowlyPion]

True, but the point I wish to make is - congress (including both parties) has to change its (their) ways too!

I don't disagree with that. My opinion is that's Obama's agenda is to engage Congress in doing the right thing. I have no confidence that McCain would offer anything, but continued bellicosity in foreign affairs and disastrous lack of focus in addressing meaningful domestic change.

 

[Astronuc]

I don't disagree with that. My opinion is that's Obama's agenda is to engage Congress in doing the right thing. I have no confidence that McCain would offer anything, but continued bellicosity in foreign affairs and disastrous lack of focus in addressing meaningful domestic change.

I hope Obama will challenge congress.

I'm not sure that McCain would continue the same path as Bush.


I very curious in either case to see who will be Secretaries of State, Defense, and NS Advisor, and who will become Sec's of Treasury and Commerce. Will Gates stay on?


Needless to say, there is much at stake. The next president will get a Double Whammy from an economy in crisis and a two unfinished wars.

Interesting perspective from Republican consultant, Ed Rollins:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/26/rollins.historic/index.html

. . . .

Guided by his political guru, Karl Rove, it was Bush II's ambition to make the Republican Party the majority party for decades to come. He and Karl wanted to create a political realignment that would marginalize Democrats for at least a generation and maybe more.

Not satisfied to change only American politics, Bush and his neo-con advisers, led by Dick Cheney, wanted to use American military might to spread democracy to places that had been led only by tribal councils and ruthless dictators.

If Bush had accomplished these goals, he truly would have been a historic president much like his newfound hero Harry Truman. But his failures were unimaginable. W will go down in history, all right.

He will leave office with the lowest approval ratings of any president in modern times and will be judged as a catastrophic failure who destroyed his party, left his successor with two unpopular, unfinished wars and left the country in the worst economic condition in nearly eight decades. That's not even counting the Bush administration's inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath.

. . . .

 

[LowlyPion]

Not wanting to start another thread just for this:

Jury finds Stevens guilty on all counts

Anchorage Daily News

Published: October 27th, 2008 12:03 PM
Last Modified: October 27th, 2008 12:03 PM

WASHINGTON - A jury has found Sen. Ted Stevens guilty of lying on his financial disclosure forms.

I suppose then that Alaska will have a Democratic Senator with the incumbent a convicted felon?

 

[mheslep]

True, but the point I wish to make is - congress (including both parties) has to change its (their) ways too!

Yes I understood, and agree.

 

[LowlyPion]

Of minor note since it was only big talk apparently not acted on:

ATF disrupts skinhead plot to assassinate Obama
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer Lara Jakes Jordan, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – Federal agents have broken up a plot to assassinate Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and shoot or decapitate 102 black people in a Tennessee murder spree, the ATF said Monday.

In court records unsealed Monday, federal agents said they disrupted plans to rob a gun store and target a predominantly African-American high school by two neo-Nazi skinheads. Agents said the skinheads did not identify the school by name.

Jim Cavanaugh, special agent in charge of the Nashville field office for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said the two men planned to shoot 88 black people and decapitate another 14. The numbers 88 and 14 are symbolic in the white supremacist community.

The men also sought to go on a national killing spree, with Obama as its final target, Cavanaugh told The Associated Press.

"They said that would be their last, final act — that they would attempt to kill Sen. Obama," Cavanaugh said. "They didn't believe they would be able to do it, but that they would get killed trying."

An Obama spokeswoman traveling with the senator in Pennsylvania had no immediate comment.

The men, Daniel Cowart, 20, of Bells, Tenn., and Paul Schlesselman 18, of West Helena, Ark., are being held without bond. Agents seized a rifle, a sawed-off shotgun and three pistols from the men when they were arrested. Authorities alleged the two men were preparing to break into a gun shop to steal more.

Attorney Joe Byrd, who has been hired to represent Cowart, did not immediately return a call seeking comment Monday.

Cowart and Schlesselman are charged with possessing an unregistered firearm, conspiring to steal firearms from a federally licensed gun dealer, and threatening a candidate for president.

The investigation is continuing, and more charges are possible, Cavanaugh said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081027/ap_on_el_pr/skinhead_plot
FYI:

14/88: Common white supremacist code. 14 stands for the "14 words" slogan coined by David Lane, who is serving a 190-year sentence for his part in the assassination of a Jewish talk show host: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." 88 means "Heil Hitler," as H is the eighth letter of the alphabet.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=384

 

[LowlyPion]

The last week of the campaign has arrived:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3IAjphhw6E

Break out the hate ads.

 

[Astronuc]

It is interesting to compare the map of senate races with that of the presidential nominees.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/congress/senate.html

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/

 

[LowlyPion]

It is interesting to compare the map of senate races with that of the presidential nominees.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/congress/senate.html

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/

I think Liddy Dole is already gone.

Stevens is probably gone in Alaska with his conviction today.

The Democrats will need Georgia or Maine it seems to get to 60 as I suspect they are less likely than getting Franken in Minn or Merkley in OR or Shaheen in NH.

From my point of view though - feeling a little bit in a vindictive mood - I'd like to see Lindsay Graham get the boot in SC for palling around with McCain this whole election cycle, though I doubt that will happen.

 

[turbo]

Unfortunately, Susan Collins (R. ME) is probably safe. There are a lot of old people who will vote for her for the sake of continuity, and she has become a chameleon. Where she once wore bright red dresses or suits in all her ads, she has been wearing a LOT of blue and other dark colors. Her ads regularly use the word "independent" to describe her despite the fact that she has given Bush everything he has asked for. She even bowed out of the Republican convention, so as not to get tied to McCain or Bush.

Tom Allen is a good candidate, but he's going to have a hard time beating the incumbent.

 

[rootX]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7694254.stm

"

Jim Cavanaugh, special agent in charge of the Nashville field office of the ATF, told AP that the two men had planned to shoot 88 black people and decapitate another 14. The numbers 88 and 14 are symbolic in the white supremacist community.

Mr Cavanaugh said the men had sought to go on a national killing spree, with Mr Obama as its final target.

"

I think they were way too stupid to perform any massacre.