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

[Lemur]

Also I think Mickey is a crypto-socialist secret Muslim.

These days who isn't?

Some major conservative talk show host came out for Obama today. I expect to see him forced off the reservation within the week, as has happened to legal scholars and longtime conservatives before him.

On his talk show on WPHT today, conservative Philadelphian Michael Smerconish endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. [...]

"I’ve decided," he said. "My conclusion comes after reading the candidates’ memoirs and campaign platforms, attending both party conventions, interviewing both men multiple times, and watching all primary and general election debates.

"John McCain is an honorable man who has served his country well. But he will not get my vote. For the first time since registering as a Republican 28 years ago, I’m voting for a Democrat for president.

"I may have been an appointee in the George H.W. Bush administration, and master of ceremonies for George W. Bush in 2004, but last Saturday I stood amidst the crowd at an Obama event in North Philadelphia," says the Republican.

Smerconish has given us some more from his op-ed:

"Terrorism. The candidates disagree as to where to prosecute the war against Islamic fundamentalists. Barack Obama is correct in saying the front line in that battle is not Iraq, it’s the Afghan-Pakistan border. Osama bin Laden crossed that border from Tora Bora in December 2001, and we stopped pursuit. The Bush administration outsourced the hunt for bin Laden and, instead, invaded Iraq.

"No one in Iraq caused the death of 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Our invasion was based on a false predicate, so we have no business being there, regardless of whether the surge is working. Our focus must be the tribal-ruled FATA region in Pakistan. Only recently has our military engaged al-Qaeda there in operations that mirror those Obama was ridiculed for recommending in August 2007.

"Last spring, Obama told me, 'It’s not that I was opposed to war [in Iraq]. It’s that I felt we had a war that we had not finished.' Even Sen. Joe Lieberman conceded to me just last Friday that 'the headquarters of our opposition, our enemies today,' is the FATA."

Smerconish is taking a lot of heat from his fellow GOPers, as one might imagine.

[KukriKhan]

Time out. 24 hours.

[KukriKhan]

Re-opened. Yes, early. Let's stay on-topic and off-personal, please.

[m52nickerson]

The Obama campaign thinks that the Republicans have drummed up these registration fraud charges for political gain and has asked for a special prosecutor to look into it.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/...orn/index.html

[Lemur]

Peggy Noonan throws Governor Palin under a bus. Good for her.

She is a person of great ambition, but the question remains: What is the purpose of the ambition? She wants to rise, but what for? For seven weeks I've listened to her, trying to understand if she is Bushian or Reaganite—a spender, to speak briefly, whose political decisions seem untethered to a political philosophy, and whose foreign policy is shaped by a certain emotionalism, or a conservative whose principles are rooted in philosophy, and whose foreign policy leans more toward what might be called romantic realism, and that is speak truth, know America, be America, move diplomatically, respect public opinion, and move within an awareness and appreciation of reality.

But it's unclear whether she is Bushian or Reaganite. She doesn't think aloud. She just . . . says things.

Her supporters accuse her critics of snobbery: Maybe she's not a big "egghead" but she has brilliant instincts and inner toughness. But what instincts? "I'm Joe Six-Pack"? She does not speak seriously but attempts to excite sensation—"palling around with terrorists." If the Ayers case is a serious issue, treat it seriously. She is not as thoughtful or persuasive as Joe the Plumber, who in an extended cable interview Thursday made a better case for the Republican ticket than the Republican ticket has made. In the past two weeks she has spent her time throwing out tinny lines to crowds she doesn't, really, understand. This is not a leader, this is a follower, and she follows what she imagines is the base, which is in fact a vast and broken-hearted thing whose pain she cannot, actually, imagine. She could reinspire and reinspirit; she chooses merely to excite. She doesn't seem to understand the implications of her own thoughts.

No news conferences? Interviews now only with friendly journalists? You can't be president or vice president and govern in that style, as a sequestered figure. This has been Mr. Bush's style the past few years, and see where it got us. You must address America in its entirety, not as a sliver or a series of slivers but as a full and whole entity, a great nation trying to hold together. When you don't, when you play only to your little piece, you contribute to its fracturing.

In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics. It's no good, not for conservatism and not for the country. And yes, it is a mark against John McCain, against his judgment and idealism.

[OverKnight]

I just hope whatever way the Election goes, the result is indisputable.

I do not want a repeat of 2000. Besides being fodder for some great SNL skits, it was a national embarassment. It made us look bad in front of the other countries.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38646

[Lemur]

Wow, a dude in Ohio hangs an effigy with an Obama sticker, "Husain" scribbled on the chest, and a Star of David on the head. He then tells reporters that America is a white, Christian nation that shouldn't have a darkie running the Executive. Stay classy, Ohio.

[Kralizec]

Peggy Noonan throws Governor Palin under a bus. Good for her.

Good article.

I don't understand why you're still talking about this though, McCain is slated to win anyway.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Wow, a dude in Ohio hangs an effigy with an Obama sticker, "Husain" scribbled on the chest, and a Star of David on the head.

Stay classy, Ohio.

Wow, a dude in New York put up a life size puppet of McCain dressed in a white Klan robe, chasing Obama.

Stay classy, New York.


(1:30 mark )

[CrossLOPER]

Wow, a dude in New York put up a life size puppet of McCain dressed in a white Klan robe, chasing Obama.

Stay classy, New York.


(1:30 mark )

Racist or lynching target...racist or lynching target....

Yep, this is getting fun.

[Kralizec]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOm3KTw3iwc

"I reserve the right to party with Putin"

[ICantSpellDawg]

Peggy Noonan throws Governor Palin under a bus. Good for her.

She is a person of great ambition, but the question remains: What is the purpose of the ambition? She wants to rise, but what for? For seven weeks I've listened to her, trying to understand if she is Bushian or Reaganite—a spender, to speak briefly, whose political decisions seem untethered to a political philosophy, and whose foreign policy is shaped by a certain emotionalism, or a conservative whose principles are rooted in philosophy, and whose foreign policy leans more toward what might be called romantic realism, and that is speak truth, know America, be America, move diplomatically, respect public opinion, and move within an awareness and appreciation of reality.

But it's unclear whether she is Bushian or Reaganite. She doesn't think aloud. She just . . . says things.

Her supporters accuse her critics of snobbery: Maybe she's not a big "egghead" but she has brilliant instincts and inner toughness. But what instincts? "I'm Joe Six-Pack"? She does not speak seriously but attempts to excite sensation—"palling around with terrorists." If the Ayers case is a serious issue, treat it seriously. She is not as thoughtful or persuasive as Joe the Plumber, who in an extended cable interview Thursday made a better case for the Republican ticket than the Republican ticket has made. In the past two weeks she has spent her time throwing out tinny lines to crowds she doesn't, really, understand. This is not a leader, this is a follower, and she follows what she imagines is the base, which is in fact a vast and broken-hearted thing whose pain she cannot, actually, imagine. She could reinspire and reinspirit; she chooses merely to excite. She doesn't seem to understand the implications of her own thoughts.

No news conferences? Interviews now only with friendly journalists? You can't be president or vice president and govern in that style, as a sequestered figure. This has been Mr. Bush's style the past few years, and see where it got us. You must address America in its entirety, not as a sliver or a series of slivers but as a full and whole entity, a great nation trying to hold together. When you don't, when you play only to your little piece, you contribute to its fracturing.

In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics. It's no good, not for conservatism and not for the country. And yes, it is a mark against John McCain, against his judgment and idealism.

She's asking questions. She is allowed to do that. I don't like National Review's hard line with its writers lately. Although I've never liked Chris Buckley - (there is something inherently pathetic about a boy who idololizes his father to the point of becoming a doppleganger - irrespective of the fact that he is no conservative) NR has a crappy publication lately and should show poeple an enlightened opposition to liberalism like it used to.

I have very similar concerns about Palin - those interviews really threw me off and I want to hear a higher dialogue from her. These are the questions better answered in a positive light now rather than after McCain loses the election.

Palin should read this as a critique that could turn into opposition. Learn from the opinions of respectable people who see serious flaws in your campaign and, by extension, your character.

[Crazed Rabbit]

This is why I don't like to respond to you CR, and maybe we should just civilly ignore each other. You like to forcibly drag things down into tit for tats and wholesale condemnations of the opposition, almost invariably from cherrypicked, one sided and non-mainstream news sources. I think the gist of Don's post was.... where exactly does that get us, except riled up and more partisan than we were before?

As I've already said, and just in the post you quoted, one side isn't worse than the other because of anecdotes about people being jerks to either side. I'm not condemning all democrats, as you've done to Republicans. You'll notice me and Lemur getting along fine as we post our 'hey look at this jerk' stories.

As for stealing elections...

The Obama campaign thinks that the Republicans have drummed up these registration fraud charges for political gain and has asked for a special prosecutor to look into it.

ACORN's had problems for years, like when they were convicted of trying to register 1800 fake names in Washington state.

Peggy Noonan throws Governor Palin under a bus. Good for her.

*Sighs*
She makes a good point.

CR

[Divinus Arma]

I am leaning towards Obama.

I think the average Joe is getting screwed and the big shots have had it easy. That is as simple as I can put it. I've watched Joe struggle more and have less security in his employment, health care, and retirement. Meanwhile, corporate executives see greater and greater benefit. Labor has become a commodity in the global economy and the ordinary American citizen suffers.

I've seen both sides of the coin, having a business education and working with union protection. The simple truth is that if management can screw the employee, the chances are high that he will. Workers only have a voice when they organize.

The flip side of that, of course, is that executives have a duty to maximize shareholder wealth.

The pendulum swings both ways and now its time for a swing to the left.

I am confident that Senate Republicans will filibuster anything too nasty that comes from a unified Congress and White House. I think it is also reasonable to suspect that Blue Dog Democrats will work with Republicans to keep entitlements minimal.

Lastly, I have come to believe in a few basic human rights that Republicans seem to leave to social darwinism. Health Care is chief among these. Talent and ambition allow us to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle through material success, but that success should not dictate who lives and who dies. The market has its place, but the nature of greed dictates that it should not be our only reliance.

Besides, evangelicals suck. Sorry, Orgah Evangelicals. Its true. Your thumping and fear-preaching sucks.

[KarlXII]

Welcome to Hell, Divinus! Would you like a brimstone seat?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Some Euroweenie stole Div's account or something?

Rights for the poor? Healthcare for all? And, God forbid...Unions?


In all seriousness. I couldn't agree more, Div. America's middle class is hurting. Has been for all too long. It is time to swing the pendulum.
When an honest man can't make a living that will see his kids through college and that provides for his mother a dignified old age, then something needs to change.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You are suggesting that Conservatives are arguing that it is a time for a swing to the left? You think that the Administration with the single most major spending hike in history needs to be replaced by another that will spend even more?

I've never heard a single thing from you to suggest any sort of ideological conservatism. Not wanting some big government to take your money doesn't make you a conservative - it is a reasonable egoistic response to a burgeoning governemnt. Nobody struggling with money wants higher taxes - it all depends on where those cuts are coming from and who benefits. You are a voter - not a conservative.

[Xiahou]

Why is healthcare a "basic right"?

[Divinus Arma]

Why is healthcare a "basic right"?

A good and solid question my friend.

I would have to restate this as an "advanced right". And what I mean by this is that all citizens of an economically advanced civilization are entitled to health care, even at public cost.

Why? There are only two options on this topic: Either it is a right or it is a privilege. If it is a privilege, than social darwinism rules and only the most capable are entitled the right to survive. I have come to fundamentally disagree with this as it is below humanity.

The essence of the argument requires us to take a stand on the self-identification of humanity. If we are mere animals, than social darwinism prevails. Neither God nor secular ethics restrains us from dominating each other for the survival of our genes.

We support each other for mutual protection. We support each other for mutual intellectual advancement. We support each other for equal material opportunity. We collectively hire law enforcement to protect us from ourselves. We collectively support infrastructure to individually prosper. And we must mutually support each other to protect us individually from illness and trauma.

Does the man whose house burns down pay more for fire service?

Does the man whose business is saved from organized crime pay more for law enforcement?

Do we not all hold a minimal responsibility to our brother so that when the time comes when we need aid, he shall be there for us as we were there for him?

There is a place for the market. But it should not be relied upon solely.

[Reverend Joe]

[ICantSpellDawg]

It isn't a basic right. The fact is that there are a few things that the government can do to help with health care without taking over the system or spending much at all.

Conservatives have plans for this that don't involve undercutting the private care system or forcing the well-off to carry all of us.

First
Eliminating inter-state plan bans are the first way to help solve the problem. While doing this we should ensure that not all providers flock to lax states that are havens of irresponsibility. Net cost to government? 0

Second
The government can help to arrange people in a similar pool to that which businesses provide and buy coverage from private companies in bulk. The individuals could be charged an appropriate amount based on coverage and all the government has done is created the umbrella with a big risk pool. Net cost to government? Since it isn't reliant on tax dollars, is operated by private industry and paid for entirely by the individual - it shouldn't cost the government much as it is financed on an individual and tiered basis

Third
Transparency is key. People need to see procedure pricing (at least averaged parameters) and be able to compare them between both plan and health care providers. How about giving me an invoice before I sign my life and insurance away? This should be mandatory. Net cost to government? I don't know - what is the cost of giving people an accurate estimate for car work before it goes into the shop?

Fourth
Since states have funds that already pay for emergency care for the uninsured which is unconscionably expensive - this previously allotted money should be used to buy rudimentary plans. Sure this is socialist, but the fact remains that we spend the money anyway - might as well save a few bucks. Individual States would be responsible for buying small preventative plans with the emergency funds. Massachusets did this and the foundational plan was highly effective and cost 0 in terms of tax hikes.

There are a number of ways to start doing this without causing taxpayers to throw absurd amounts of money into a bonfire - all for a more packed and inneficient system. Wouldn't it be the responsible thing to do to try this first? It will cost the least and not demolish the existing system - which, while becoming overinflated with regard to prices - is still highly functional and provides great service.

If it fails to control costs or insure people who need it we can come back to it with a new plan. Before you condemn conservatives, realize that we are just trying to ellicit responsibility and self respect from people. You think that we worship the wealthy? I don't - I just realize that if the wealthy start carrying us entirely, they could become more than benevolent and more like puppet masters. I'm trying to avoid oligarchy - the way to do this is to make individuals responsible for their own lives, not to set them up for work on a plantation; "all the food we can eat?? guaranteed work??? Thanks Massa!"

[Lemur]

You'll notice me and Lemur getting along fine as we post our 'hey look at this jerk' stories.

True dat. I see these little stories more like politically charged entries in News of the Weird.

Meanwhile, Senator Obama draws a crowd of roughly 100k in Missouri. Astonishing. Say what you like about the man, but get real -- who else could do that? What politician could pull that many people off their backsides just to hear him speak? I know it's very fashionable to dump on him for his eloquence and star power, but don't deny the dude his due.

[m52nickerson]

ACORN's had problems for years, like when they were convicted of trying to register 1800 fake names in Washington state.

CR

Registration fraud can't steal an election, suppressing votes can.

[Husar]

You know, it maysound weird, but if we'd consider the stupid son of some rich guy who may well be clever to be more capable and thus more deserving of some vital treatment than me, I'd consider getting my gun to increase my capabilities in case I had a terminal disease anyway...
I'm a nice guy but when you go that far I'll go even further.

[Crazed Rabbit]

What?!

In 2004 in Washington state the number of votes determined to be illegal by one judge was an order of magnitude greater than the number of deciding votes (IIRC). Many of those illegal votes were from incorrectly registered voters, just the type of crap ACORN is once again pulling, ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

Voter 'suppression' is like claims of monolithic 'institutional racism' by democrats - their arguments never actually require they prove any 'suppression' happened.

CR

[m52nickerson]

It isn't a basic right. The fact is that there are a few things that the government can do to help with health care without taking over the system or spending much at all.

Conservatives have plans for this that don't involve undercutting the private care system or forcing the well-off to carry all of us.

Since every other full industrialized nation on the planet has a universal health care system, I think is a right. The US is far behind.

Obama's plan does not take over the system. It simple give people the option to buy a government offered plan.

First - Without the bans there is no way to prevent the providers from flocking to those states. People will buy plans they can afford, those will come from the states with less required coverages. Those plans will leave people short.

Second - Will it eliminate the exclusions of pre-existing conditions? How many choices of plans will those groups have?

Third - You can already get this from you insurance companies.

Fourth - I agree.

Cbama's plan does not destroy the current system. What it does is force the independent providers to compete with the federal plan. Competition is good, right?

[seireikhaan]

CR- If Micky Mouse is registered to vote in Ohio, does that mean that Micky Mouse actually comes out and vote on election day?

I'm not saying that registration fraud isn't bad, but its not the same as actual voter fraud. Not quite.

[Banquo's Ghost]

May I remind members that all US Election related material is to be posted only in this thread.

Conservatives for Obama has been merged into this discussion.

[m52nickerson]

What?!

In 2004 in Washington state the number of votes determined to be illegal by one judge was an order of magnitude greater than the number of deciding votes (IIRC). Many of those illegal votes were from incorrectly registered voters, just the type of crap ACORN is once again pulling, ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

Voter 'suppression' is like claims of monolithic 'institutional racism' by democrats - their arguments never actually require they prove any 'suppression' happened.

CR

If those illegal voters would have voted, it would have been fraud. If you start challenging votes and throw them out becasue information does not match, of addresses change that is suppression.

You can register 200 fake people to vote, since they are not real they can't show up to vote no voter fraud.

If your get 200 registration thrown out becasue of accusation of fraud, and those 200 people can't vote that is voter fraud.

That is why the Obama campaign has asked the investigator who is looking into the firings of many federal prosecutes, which revolved around suppression issues, to look into the allegations the RNC is making. The RNC could be using these allegation to help them suppress voter.

It is much easier to suppress 200,000 votes then it is to produce 200,000 non-existent people to go and vote.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Since every other full industrialized nation on the planet has a universal health care system, I think is a right. The US is far behind.

Obama's plan does not take over the system. It simple give people the option to buy a government offered plan.

First - Without the bans there is no way to prevent the providers from flocking to those states. People will buy plans they can afford, those will come from the states with less required coverages. Those plans will leave people short.

Second - Will it eliminate the exclusions of pre-existing conditions? How many choices of plans will those groups have?

Third - You can already get this from you insurance companies.

Fourth - I agree.

Cbama's plan does not destroy the current system. What it does is force the independent providers to compete with the federal plan. Competition is good, right?

As for the "pre-existing conditions" idea - As it would essentially be a group plan, anyone with previous constant insurance over the past months is eligible regardless of pre-existing. THere are other ideas, such as seperating the chronically ill from the average population in order to wildly lower the cost for the majority of healthy individuals. The Chronically ill could be supplemented heavliy in their care by the government requireing only a minor tax hike. This may be ok with people because their own premiums would plummet.



As a seperate example of a failed governemnt plan - the Hawaiian system of healthcare for minors has proven to be a failure. It told families that the state would provide health care if families didn't have it.

What families began doing is dropping their children from their family plans to save money and registering them under the state based supplemental plan. The state budget couldn't afford this, so now the entire plan is being scrapped, which is a shame because it was signed in by the current governor.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081017/..._health_hawaii

"State health officials argued that most of the children enrolled in the universal child care program previously had private health insurance, indicating that it was helping those who didn't need it."