U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Well, as you're probably aware, Fox News went for the trifecta. First there was calling for Obama's assassination, then there was the "terrorist fist-jab," and now it's calling Michelle Obama his "baby mama," a phrase normally reserved for unmarried women who you've knocked up.

---

So, hum, an analyst working for Fox can say such crap and not be fired right away ?

And here I was thinking french medias were bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

So, hum, an analyst working for Fox can say such crap and not be fired right away ?

And here I was thinking french medias were bad.

---

To be fair, the Terrorist Fist-jab analyst was fired, or at least had her own show taken away from her.

Good grief! Panzer, read. This Black bastard is a complete disgrace to the election!


Also, Obama wants crack

Quote:

---

This Black bastard is a complete disgrace to the election!

---

Aw come on Louis that Black bastard just had a little slip of the tongue , perhaps he thought it was his job of giving good PR and lobbying for political favours for crazy dictators rather than his job of pushing for a candidate in a democratic election .

I'm not really sure whether this has been discussed in the thread here yet, but this was a very intersting blurb that I heard on the news this morning.

Basically, "the stone age did not end because we ran out of stones." That said, this effort by all of the politicians to reduce gas costs, while beneificial in the short term, are very harmful in the long term. While some gas cutbacks have occurred, there really hasn't been any mass boycott of gas due to its cost simply because American society is so dependent on gasoline for everything that the current prices have not reached a critical level yet.

Domestic and foreign attempts to lower prices are the reason that this level has not been achieved yet. Oil producers like the Saudis, yesterday?? iirc, will increase oil production when they see prices approaching such a level simply because although they want oil prices to be high, they don't want it to be so high such that demand will significantly decrease. As such, they increase production just before this level is approached and prolong such an oil dependence. Domestically, no politicians can realistically not call for attempts to decrease gas costs and still accept to be successful. Even though it would be the best in the long term to let gas prices increase alot without much control and thus, force everyone to develop and invest in better energy technologies, it is political suicide for either Obama or McCain to propose to do so.

I would really like to hear a response from both candidates in a debate regarding this, but I don't expect any half-decent response other than a skillfull avoidance of the issue.

Not sure exactly the point you're trying to make, Tevash, but if it's getting us weaned of our dependence on foreign oil (and eventually, all petroleum products), both candidates have laid out plans to help in that regard.

McCain wants to build more reactors. A lot more. He recognizes, correctly, that nuclear power does nothing to increase greenhouse gasses, fissable material is limitless, at least for the foreseeable future, and understands that large public expenditures may need to be made for proper disposal and handling of the waste. He also offered a 300 million bounty to a commercially realizable electric car that could take advantage of all the electricity coming in from all those new nuclear plants. He's also mentioned the use of clean coal technology for a fossil fuel that we actually do have in abundance.

Obama wants us to primarily cut back on energy consumption and pursue using solar power. I'm not sure if anybody in his campaign have done a feasibility study of converting the nation to solar power, but last time I checked, based on the current efficiency, it takes photo-voltaic cells the size of Nebraska just to power a city of 500,000. And photo-voltaic cells use heavy metals, which need to be replaced periodically, so it's not as 'clean' a technology as people might first think. I think Obama also wants to implement windfarms, but even the great liberal icon, Ted Kennedy, wouldn't let a windfarm go up off the coast of Cape Cod, so I don't know where you're going to put those, if you let the NIMB crowd have their way.

Now who would have seen this coming?

Quote:

---

Obama Tilts Toward Center, Irking Some Activists
Stances on Spy Bill
And Corporate Tax
Buck Liberal Base
By SUSAN DAVIS
June 24, 2008; Page A8

Barack Obama's support of an overhaul of domestic-spying laws last week was the latest in a string of statements suggesting the Democratic presidential candidate is tacking toward the center to compete with John McCain.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

On foreign policy, national security, tax issues and even local politics, Sen. Obama has made some decisions lately that belie his ranking by the nonpartisan National Journal as the U.S.'s "most liberal" senator.

During the primaries, he ran to the left of Sen. Hillary Clinton, securing the nomination in part by shoring up a base that included self-identified liberals and Internet activists who helped fill his campaign war chest.

Some of those supporters are irked by Sen. Obama's latest moves, but the general-election season will put increased pressure on both candidates to attract moderate and independent voters.

The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, conducted in early June, showed that 58% of voters perceive Sen. Obama as a liberal and 24% view him as a moderate. In contrast, 34% view Sen. McCain as a moderate and 48% see him as a conservative.

To be sure, the predominant view among party leaders is that a turn toward the center is smart politics, and that Sen. Obama's willingness to buck the left wing on issues such as the spy bill signals he is maneuvering to fight Sen. McCain directly for voters in the middle of the political spectrum.

"I applaud it," a senior Democratic lawmaker said. "By standing up to MoveOn.org and the ACLU, he's showing, I think, maybe the first example of demonstrating his ability to move to the center. He's got to make the center comfortable with him. He can't win if the center isn't comfortable."

Sen. Obama's press office didn't respond to requests for comment.

The shift has met with some protest from the activist left. The liberal MoveOn.org, which endorsed Sen. Obama, is petitioning its members to call his campaign to object to his support of the spy bill. The group notes that he previously vowed to support a filibuster of the legislation because of immunity provisions for telephone companies that helped the government carry out its surveillance program.

Popular liberal blogs criticized the senator after he announced his support of the bill Friday. "There's an element of distrust now," Matt Stoller, a liberal activist and co-founder of the blog OpenLeft.com, said Monday at an Internet politics conference in New York.

Mr. Stoller said that Sen. Obama's position on the spy bill may not alienate the majority of his supporters, but the issue gives activists "a strong reason not to trust him or give him the benefit of the doubt."

Similarly, Sen. Obama's decision to opt out of the public-financing system for the general election was a blow to leading liberal Democrats who have championed campaign-finance reform and public financing. "This is not a good decision," Sen. Russ Feingold (D., Wis.), said in a statement Thursday.

On taxes, Sen. Obama told The Wall Street Journal in a recent interview that he would consider cuts to the corporate tax rate as part of an effort to simplify the tax system, a position also advocated by Sen. McCain.
[Graph]

Sen. Obama's shift toward the center is particularly apparent in foreign policy. In a recent speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, he offered such ardent support for Israel that he had to backtrack just a few days later. Sen. Obama, working to woo Jewish voters, told the lobbying group that he supported Israel retaining control of an "undivided" Jerusalem. The comment so infuriated many Arab leaders that he was forced to issue a clarification that he didn't oppose Israeli-Palestinian negotiations over the future of the city.

He also used the AIPAC speech to tweak one of his most controversial positions -- a stated willingness to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- and outline a hard-line position on Iran that is basically interchangeable with Sen. McCain's.

In his remarks, Sen. Obama said a possible meeting with Mr. Ahmadinejad would take place "at a time and place of my choosing, if and only if it can advance the interests of the United States" -- and only after earlier talks between lower-ranking American and Iranian officials. He also vowed to "do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon -- everything."

On Iraq, meanwhile, Sen. Obama has been making clear that he favors shrinking the U.S. military presence there, as opposed to trying to quickly eliminate it through an immediate withdrawal.

He favors withdrawing one or two "combat" brigades a month, but the designation is vague enough that it could allow a President Obama to leave potentially significant numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said he had been prepared to lobby Sen. Obama against withdrawing forces too precipitously, only to find that the senator's thinking was not that far from his own.

Mr. Zebari said that he had a lengthy telephone call last week with Sen. Obama and that he came away "reassured" that Sen. Obama wouldn't take steps to jeopardize Iraq's recent security gains. He said Sen. Obama told him he would "consult very closely with the Iraqi government and with the military commanders in the field" before ordering any withdrawals. "He will not take any drastic decisions, or reckless actions," Mr. Zebari said.

Sen. Obama's center tilt comes as Republicans have increased their efforts to paint him as a liberal -- a word that has been demagogued to where Democrats now mostly prefer the term progressive to describe their views.

In recent interviews and speeches, Sen. McCain has drawn parallels between his rival's energy policies and those of former President Jimmy Carter, who conservatives criticize for tax increases and heavy regulation.

Politically, Sen. Obama also endorsed Georgia's Rep. John Barrow, a conservative white Southern Democrat, against a liberal African-American woman, state Sen. Regina Thomas, in the July 15 primary. The move raised eyebrows, because party leaders generally don't get involved in intraparty skirmishes. While Ms. Thomas may have more appeal among Democratic primary voters, Mr. Barrow is widely viewed as in a better position to win in this swing district.

The endorsement also stoked anger on the left.

"It is up to us to create a progressive check on Obama, and we might just have our first opportunity," OpenLeft.com wrote regarding Sen. Obama's nod, agitating for Ms. Thomas to score a primary upset.

---

Man, what a smart politician. I'll give the guy that.

Republican Senator jumps ship.

Chalk up another incident of Obama taking credit for legislation he had nothing to do with- this time via a campaign add:

Quote:

---

Obama says that he "extended healthcare for wounded troops that had been neglected" and cited Public Law 110-181 as proof of this.

The problem is: Obama didn't show up to vote. Only 9 senators voted the bill down or did not show up to vote.
Obama was one of the 9.

---

link

The link is just to the first blog I found covering it- but if someone doesn't like it, you can look up the voting records and view the ad online. :book:

Obama slides a little more to the center -- classic Dem post primary shuffle.

McCain throws a few bones to the conservative wing of the GOP to keep them from staying home come November. Classic CCGOP strategy.

Both candidates are making the cheerfully exploitative -- and politically correct -- assessment that their core supporters to date have no where to go, so they can piss them off a little bit and say things to grab the others in the middle or previous opposition. SSDD

Don't you love the "new" politics as practiced by the Crown Prince of Change and Maverick Mack? :rolleyes3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Don't you love the "new" politics as practiced by the Crown Prince of Change and Maverick Mack? :rolleyes3:

---

Yup, I feel sorry for you guys having no real choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

McCain throws a few bones to the conservative wing of the GOP to keep them from staying home come November. Classic CCGOP strategy.

---

Why the heck do they only give themselves the options of staying home or voting GOP? Really, I can think of two choices that a disgruntled GOP member has besides staying home. Besides, you might even get a third party in the system!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Why the heck do they only give themselves the options of staying home or voting GOP? Really, I can think of two choices that a disgruntled GOP member has besides staying home. Besides, you might even get a third party in the system!

---

Indeed. I'll definitely be voting, but it probably won't be for McCain. There are things I like in both the Constitution party and the Libertarian party, but Im not in love with either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Indeed. I'll definitely be voting, but it probably won't be for McCain. There are things I like in both the Constitution party and the Libertarian party, but Im not in love with either.

---

Prohibition Party FTW. They got 1896 votes last Presidential election, so they could use all the help you can give them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Why the heck do they only give themselves the options of staying home or voting GOP? Really, I can think of two choices that a disgruntled GOP member has besides staying home. Besides, you might even get a third party in the system!

---

Both of those parties are too "out there" for my tastes.

Besides voting 3rd party does nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

Besides voting 3rd party does nothing.

---

Tell it to the Whigs, the Federalists, and the Democratic-Republicans.

Besides voting 3rd party does nothing.

For those outside the swing states its about as ineffective as voting dem or rep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

Both of those parties are too "out there" for my tastes.

---

How about America First, Reform, Centrist, or Moderate?

Quote:

---

Besides voting 3rd party does nothing.

---

You know, ironically, that's because people don't vote third party. If people like you decided to, then it would do something.

Besides, by that logic, a single vote doesn't do anything anyways, so why bother?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

You know, ironically, that's because people don't vote third party. If people like you decided to, then it would do something.

---

Thank you EMFM, that's what I've been trying to explain to people on other sites for ages. However, at the Presidential level it does not have the same effect as voting Third Party at a more local level, where there are fewer votes and hence each third party vote pushes them far closer to acceptance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Prohibition Party FTW. They got 1896 votes last Presidential election, so they could use all the help you can give them!

---

I actually would like a party that's a mix of the Libertarian party and the Constitution party.... Maybe we could call them Republicans. :idea2:

Now if only we could find some candidates to run. Bah, it's a silly pipe dream. :shame:

Vote: Ron Paul

"Former President Bill Clinton, who has been noticeably reticent in his backing for Barack Obama, finally offered his endorsement yesterday, issuing a one-sentence statement through a spokesman."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...help_to_obama/

Wow, a ringing example of party unity. :laugh4:

I wonder why Bill is having a harder time letting the loss to Obama go than Hillary? Maybe because since he doesn't hold an office, he has less to gain from playing nice? Fear that he might lose the title of most charming Democrat?

Whatever the outcome, I'm glade the next president won't have the last name Bush or Clinton. I really don't want the Presidency to become a bauble traded between the Montagues and Capulets.

How about Jenna vs. Chelsea in 2020? :scared:

The third party has rarely appeared because the two parties traditionally have chosen centrist policies with some to the right or left. The major third parties were traditionally regional, and thus lacked national appeal. Minor third parties were based on a single subject, and quickly withered.

Progressive Party under that ol' Bull Moose. Ran on the issue of Roosevelt, or more broadly, reform. It was born out of the La Folette party, which disappeared after La Folette's death and Roosevelts campaign.

Socialist Party, got 6% of votes in urban and Mid-western states, led by Debs, but slowed after his death and the Cold War.

Free-Soilers, ran on the single issue of no slavery in new states. Platform absorbed by the new Republicans, who combined disaffected Whigs and some Democrats.

American Party, ran on the issue of restricting immigration. Platform absorbed by Whigs and Democrats, but never gained serious support.

The two parties today (Republicans and Democrats) are broad bases for supporters to spring from. In Mississippi the Democrat victor has conservative values. Webb (?) of Virginia has a concealed weapons permit, but is a Democrat. Schwarzenegger is more liberal than some Republicans.

Third parties often share the same ideals with other parties, scattering any votes that could, combined, challenge the traditional duo. The Constitution Party (who kinda scares me) has five or six competitors for the same votes. It would be practical suicide for someone to try and run on that in a national election. State or local, it would focus more on the candidate than the party and their platform.

With Republicans and Democrats, you have flexibility in the message but can still appeal to a certain block, while third parties have to run either on personality or specific, regional, message. In those cases, the possibility of a third-party candidate shrinks, since they lack the personality to stand out against either the Democrats or Republicans.

Also, if the Constitution Party believes like the Founding Fathers, wouldn't they abolish themselves since Washington disliked political parties?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Vote: Ron Paul

---

Ron Paul is a mix of sound policy ideas and completely insane politics. While I like his fiscial conservativism, I am completely against his isolation stance in regrads to the world. He doesn't just speak of withdraw of military forces from everywhere besides the United States, something I agree with, but he also speaks of basically withdrawing from any aid given to other nations. Now that just might be political rethoric on his part, but his isolationist stance concerns me.

Some of his other policy ideas while in the long run might do the country some good, like returning to the gold standard, I don't think he has thought out the short term requirements to make it work.


Same problem goes with many of Obama's and McCain's stated policies - some of them would be beneficial in the long term, but they both fail to address the method in which to get there. Again this is the norm for American Politicians running for office, you get broad brushstrokes on policy, but nothing that will force a candidate to take a committed stance toward how they will tackle the issue. Which forces many to look at what the past track record of the candidate is versus address the issues that the candidate is running on.

This is what is forcing me to wait until the debate cycle begins so I can see if anyone can get the candidates to actually address issues versus the normal statements that focus on what the opposition's policies might be. Currently all I see in this election is the same voting cycle of the last 4 national elections - voting for who you believe to be the lesser of two bad candidates. With a democratic controled congress - this would force me to vote Republican - primarily to force the two branches to compramise (SP) to get legislation through or to create a stalemate of sorts in the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Tell it to the Whigs, the Federalists, and the Democratic-Republicans.

---

Add the Republicans to that.

Oh and I think people are definitely right about voting third party in local elections. Here in Vermont we have libertarians (oh noes!), plain old independents, Marijuana party-members, and others all running for local seats. That doesn't mean they get elected much but at the very least Bernie has been quite successful for a number of years.

It would be interesting to see influential local (read: not nationally organized) parties in the States. I'd have thought that would have been closer to the original intentions, in any case - the most damaging thing to the intentions constitution to me seems to be the development of the nationwide two-party system, dominating both the legislative and executive (and media?) powers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

Add the Republicans to that.

Oh and I think people are definitely right about voting third party in local elections. Here in Vermont we have libertarians (oh noes!), plain old independents, Marijuana party-members, and others all running for local seats. That doesn't mean they get elected much but at the very least Bernie has been quite successful for a number of years.

---

Here Here, I found a party! :2thumbsup:

Kidding aside, you are correct that my vote doesn't do much. I've always wondered why I really even bother voting.

You are in Michigan, your vote counts for so much more than someone in Oklahoma.

Yup, midwest votes are gonna count for a lot this year. Michigan-Indiana-Illinois-Wisconsin could decide this thing.

But really, I don't see a valid reason not to vote third party if the spirit moves you. That's democracy, baby!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

You are in Michigan, your vote counts for so much more than someone in Oklahoma.

---

You are missing my point. I doubt the race will come within one vote. I know my state has more electoral votes than other states.