U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

Oh, it's not just the Dems behaving strangely. Apparently their's some weird stuff in the contract McCain signed when he took out a loan for his campaign. This clause is interesting:

"Additional Requirement. Borrower and lender agree that if Borrower [McCain's campaign commitee] withdraws from the public matching funds program, but John McCain then does not win the next primary or caucus in which he is active (which can be any primary or caucus held the same day) or does not place at least within 10 percentage points of the winner of that primary or caucus, Borrower will cause John McCain to remain an active political candidate and Borrower will, within thirty (3) days of said primary or caucus (i) reapply for public matching funds, (ii) grant to Lender, as additional collateral for the Loan, a first priority perfected security interest in and to all Borrower's right, title and interest in and to the public matching funds program, and (iii) execute and deliver to Lender such documents, instruments and agreements as Lender may require with respect to the foregoing."

Kinda strange, seems as though the lender has the say-so over whether and how McCain stays in the race. One analysis:

Is this illegal? Who knows. Note that it took several days of discussion among top lawyers and former FEC commissioners to figure out whether it was even possible to opt out of the public financing system after opting in and qualifying for funds. No one's ever done that. And therefore, no one's ever opted back in, after opting out, after opting in. And therefore, no one's ever borrowed on the basis of a promise to opt back in, after opting out, after opting in. Is your head exploding yet?

What we know is that McCain found a way to use the public funds as an insurance policy: If he did poorly, he would use public funds to pay off his loans. If he did well, he would have the advantage of unlimited spending.

Admittedly, fancy-footwork with loans and financing is a lot less funny than Hillary's desperation rhetoric, but still, it's worth scratching your head a little, especially when it looks as though people are about to fire off a lot of charges about who is taking public financing.

USA Today article speculates on the possible make-up of McCain's Cabinet - and makes some pretty good picks, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

-Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., in a prominent job, possibly even secretary of state.

• Former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., as attorney general.

• Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani as homeland security secretary.

• Former Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas as treasury secretary.

• Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as health and human services secretary.

---

So... if YOU were McCain's chief talent scout, who are YOUR picks for prominent positions?

Here's mine:

VP: Condi Rice
SecState: Lieberman
SecDef: some puppet (McCain will be his own de facto SecDef); maybe Clarke, to claim bi-partisanship
Ch, JCS: Gen Petreaus (the 'surge' guy)
Atty Gen'l: Fred 'IANALbIpooTV' Thompson
H'land Scty: Giuliani
H&HS: Huckabee
FBI:
CIA: Pappa Bush (GHWB)
Dir, DOT: Fred Smith (of FedEX)
FEMA: Warren Buffet
Treasury: Gramm
Nat'l Scty Advisor: Colin Powell

I thought Fred Thompson actually started off as a lawyer before playing himself in a movie about some law case? Course, that was a while ago.

I like your cabinet picks for McCain. Haven't thought much about it myself.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I thought Fred Thompson actually started off as a lawyer before playing himself in a movie about some law case? Course, that was a while ago.

I like your cabinet picks for McCain. Haven't thought much about it myself.

CR

---

I looked it up, and you're right; he had a small practice, and was appointed an Asst DA in Tenn. Thanks. I learn sumpin' ev'r day here. :)

Last I heard the Joint Chief is not picked by the President - but is selected by Senior General Officers from all the Branches, a rotation basis among the services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

USA Today article speculates on the possible make-up of McCain's Cabinet - and makes some pretty good picks, in my opinion.



So... if YOU were McCain's chief talent scout, who are YOUR picks for prominent positions?

---

I'm voting libertarian if McCain is making Rudy his Homeland Security Secretary.

I'll probably vote 3rd party anyway. I can't really stand either party much anymore. The bull excrement is everywhere.

Yeah, really, Guiliani for DHS is precisely the thing I wanted to avoid. He's exactly the kind of person how should be given as little power as possible.

"Freedom is submitting to authority." Yeesh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Last I heard the Joint Chief is not picked by the President - but is selected by Senior General Officers from all the Branches, a rotation basis among the services.

---

According to this wiki article, and what I thought I remembered from my 'old days':

Quote:

---

The Chairman is nominated by the President for appointment and must be confirmed via majority vote by the Senate. By statute, the Chairman is appointed as a four-star officer.

---

--------------------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlextPretGood

Yeah, really, Guiliani for DHS is precisely the thing I wanted to avoid. He's exactly the kind of person how should be given as little power as possible.

---

So Giuliani gets Assistant Deputy Postmaster General? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

I looked it up, and you're right; he had a small practice, and was appointed an Asst DA in Tenn. Thanks. I learn sumpin' ev'r day here. :)

---

Here's more. :wink:

I'd be mildly surprised if Thompson accepted an AG role though. It'd be tough to implement any real policy change as AG(which was his stated reason for running) and acting pays more. Who knows though?

Quote:

---

So Giuliani gets Assistant Deputy Postmaster General? :)

---

Assistant to the Deputy Postmaster General. ~;)

I do wish you gentlemen would find a cabinet position for Ron Paul. Ambassador to the U.N., perhaps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Yeah, really, Guiliani for DHS is precisely the thing I wanted to avoid. He's exactly the kind of person how should be given as little power as possible.

"Freedom is submitting to authority." Yeesh.

---

"We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for thirty or forty or fifty years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

What he meant (I think, anyway) is that a total lack of interference of the government would not lead to freedom, except in a survival-of-the-fittest sense of the word. What we call freedom depends in large measure upon the government upholding democraticly established law.

He could have been more careful in his wording though, and I agree that he's a rather authoritarian ruler regardless of what he meant by his statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I do wish you gentlemen would find a cabinet position for Ron Paul. Ambassador to the U.N., perhaps?

---

:laugh4: or maybe Secretary of the Treasury.

How's the voting in Wisconsin today? Aside from cold, that is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

:laugh4: or maybe Secretary of the Treasury.

How's the voting in Wisconsin today? Aside from cold, that is.

---

The guy who wants to put us back on the gold standard?

Is there a 'court jester' at the cabinet position level? Perhaps Secretary of Labor? :jester:

I'm finding the Democratic race much, much more interesting these days. Is it just me, or is everyone else waiting for Barrack and Hillary to break into the 'byatch', '<racial epithet>' phase at any moment? I'm waiting for Bill to challenge Barrack to a fistfight.

All that aside, I've got to say, I'm actually really impressed with Barrack Obama through all of this. This whole latest dustup, did he plagarize Duvall Patrick or not... He's handled it perfectly. He's not denying it and claiming nonsense, he's not sweeping it under the rug, and he's not claiming he had some secret permission. He's doing what any of us would do "Uh yeah, maybe I heard him speak and it stuck in my mind. My bad, sorry Duvall. Next question?" Perfect answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

The guy who wants to put us back on the gold standard?

Is there a 'court jester' at the cabinet position level? Perhaps Secretary of Labor? :jester:

---

And don't forget he wants to abolish the IRS. (I did put a smiley in that post, didn't I?)

I'm not sure there is a cabinet level position for Dr. Paul, seeing as how most of the executive branch offends his constitutional leanings. If we want a department eliminated, that would be the one he should get. :yes:

Ha... Ha... Ha... It must be bash Ron Paul day.

Ron Paul seemed like a much sillier choice when the field was a little larger.

:sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Ha... Ha... Ha... It must be bash Ron Paul day.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Ron Paul seemed like a much sillier choice when the field was a little larger.

:sweatdrop:

---

Hey, I voted for him, but I just don't think he would do well in the Cabinet (or the UN). He would not play well with the administration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

How's the voting in Wisconsin today? Aside from cold, that is.

---

It was kinda nippy today, that's the truth. I think our high was nine degrees or so. (That's -13 to you Communists who use the metric system.) I ducked in when I figured the least people would be there, and it was still pretty crowded. Big turnout, I guess.

Oh, and I got stopped by an ABC/CNN pollster. Hooray! Today I am a statistic!

Obama Wins Wisconsin

OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST!


So-called "Article"

Quote:

---

Until I came across this article by Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media, which I regard as factual — with all that that implies — the questions about Obama's background that should have come naturally never quite rose to the surface of my mind. Barack Obama is the new man, of course. His mixed race is a symbol of that. Just like Tiger Woods — as we have read, endlessly. What's to wonder about?

But maybe it's not so simple. Obama and I are roughly the same age. I grew up in liberal circles in New York City — a place to which people who wished to rebel against their upbringings had gravitated for generations. And yet, all of my mixed race, black/white classmates throughout my youth, some of whom I am still in contact with, were the product of very culturally specific unions. They were always the offspring of a white mother, (in my circles, she was usually Jewish, but elsewhere not necessarily) and usually a highly educated black father. And how had these two come together at a time when it was neither natural nor easy for such relationships to flourish? Always through politics. No, not the young Republicans. Usually the Communist Youth League. Or maybe a different arm of the CPUSA. But, for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics. (During the Clinton Administration we were all introduced to then U. of Pennsylvania Professor Lani Guinier — also a half black/half Jewish, red diaper baby.)

I don't know how Barak Obama's parents met. But the Kincaid article referenced above makes a very convincing case that Obama's family, later, (mid 1970s) in Hawaii, had close relations with a known black Communist intellectual. And, according to what Obama wrote in his first autobiography, the man in question — Frank Marshall Davis — appears to have been Barack's own mentor, and even a father figure. Of course, since the Soviet Union itself no longer exists, it's an open question what it means practically to have been politically mentored by an official Communist. Ideologically, the implications are clearer.

Political correctness was invented precisely to prevent the mainstream liberal media from persuing the questions which might arise about how Senator Obama's mother, from Kansas, came to marry an African graduate student. Love? Sure, why not? But what else was going on around them that made it feasible? Before readers level cheap accusations of racism — let's recall that the very question of interracial marriage only became a big issue later in the 1960s. The notion of a large group of mixed race Americans became an issue during and after the Vietnam War. Even the civil-rights movement kept this culturally explosive matter at arm's distance.

It was, of course, an explicit tactic of the Communist party to stir up discontent among American blacks, with an eye toward using them as the leading edge of the revolution. To be sure, there was much to be discontented about, for black Americans, prior to the civil-rights revolution. To their credit, of course, most black Americans didn't buy the commie line — and showed more faith in the possibilities of democratic change than in radical politics, and the results on display in Moscow.

Time for some investigative journalism about the Obama family's background, now that his chances of being president have increased so much.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST!


So-called "Article"

---

He's not a communist, but a socialist lite. However, his values will surely lead us to the beginning of that path.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

He's not a communist, but a socialist lite. However, his values will surely lead us to the beginning of that path.

---

If by Socialist-lite you mean Social-Democratic, then yes I suppose you are right. Also, it wouldn't lead you down the path to Communism. Communism will never have the popular appeal that Social Democracy does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

If by Socialist-lite you mean Social-Democratic, then yes I suppose you are right.

---

Whatever.

Quote:

---

Also, it wouldn't lead you down the path to Communism. Communism will never have the popular appeal that Social Democracy does.

---

It doesn't need to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

It doesn't need to.

---

What's that supposed to mean? That the commies will seize power regardless of the popular will? Or ... what, exactly?

If you think about it, there are already a lot of semi-Socialist institutions in the U.S.A. Medicare, for example. A graduated income tax. Social security. Subsidized postal system. Subsidized mass transit. You can't call any nation a pure example of capitalism -- there are just too many places where the public's real or perceived interest falls contrary to a market solution.

So calling someone "Socialist lite" clarifies not much of anything. One could justifiably call Ronald Reagan a "Socialist lite," since he allowed so many intrusive elements of State control to survive and flourish under his guidance. And with even more justice we could call George W. Bush "Socialist lite," since he championed and passed the biggest expansion of Medicare/Medicaid in a quarter century.

Nope, I'm gonna need some more specifics before I accept that as a damning label.

I think just plan socialist would fit better anyway.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

What's that supposed to mean? That the commies will seize power regardless of the popular will? Or ... what, exactly?

---

Gradual socialization will one day lead to a communist like state.

Quote:

---

If you think about it, there are already a lot of semi-Socialist institutions in the U.S.A. Medicare, for example. A graduated income tax. Social security. Subsidized postal system. Subsidized mass transit. You can't call any nation a pure example of capitalism -- there are just too many places where the public's real or perceived interest falls contrary to a market solution.

---

Sometimes the market solution isn't the easiest, and sometimes it really isn't feasible (like an army, navy, etc). However, competition should also be encouraged as it cuts corruption and allows for the best possible price.

Quote:

---

So calling someone "Socialist lite" clarifies not much of anything. One could justifiably call Ronald Reagan a "Socialist lite," since he allowed so many intrusive elements of State control to survive and flourish under his guidance.

---

Perhaps. I really don't know too much about Reagan other than star wars, supply side tax cuts, and defense spending against the USSR.

Quote:

---

And with even more justice we could call George W. Bush "Socialist lite," since he championed and passed the biggest expansion of Medicare/Medicaid in a quarter century.

---

Bush also cut taxes and attempted to do a few things to decrease the scope of the government. He also, like you said, expanded the government. He's not really a socialist lite, more of just a big government moron to be more precise.

Quote:

---

Nope, I'm gonna need some more specifics before I accept that as a damning label.

---

Go find as many as you need, or don't, I don't care. My own classification fits me just fine.

I can't puzzle out whether an Obama presidency will lead to a Communist American or an Islamic America. The rhetoric points in all these confusing directions.

On a lighter note, am I the only one who has to suppress a sophomoric giggle every time I read an account of how Obama "split white women" in the Wisconsin primary?

-edit-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

He's not really a socialist lite, more of just a big government moron to be more precise.

---

What would you say is the difference between a "big government moron" and a "Socialist lite"?

A big government moron may support big government for reasons other than those traditionally associated with socialism, while a 'socialist-lite' - to use Ice's term - would support big government for socialist reasons.

That's how I see it, anyway.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

A big government moron may support big government for reasons other than those traditionally associated with socialism, while a 'socialist-lite' - to use Ice's term - would support big government for socialist reasons.

That's how I see it, anyway.

CR

---

Pretty much.

A big government moron... creates more big government.

A socialist lite creates creates more big government... except most of it, if not all, is aimed at pursuing socialist goals. (increasing taxes, social services, etc)