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

[Lemur]

I ain't no Republican but I do confess to voting for a bunch. Thanks to the ex-Democrat Neo-Con taint that has permanently damaged the Republican party I am content to remain an independent with strong conservative leanings.

Being an Independent in Brooklyn sucks major eggs. Say bye-bye to ever voting in a primary again.

I mean seriously now, McCain is the most moderate candidate of any party to run in ages.

Ah, yes, I remember that McCain fondly. He seems to bear no relation to the McCain now campaigning.

I hate to say it but I'll wager you'd still be in favor of Obama if Romney or Giuliani was McCain's running mate instead of Palin.

I'd probably still wind up supporting Obama, but I would have gladly chosen McCain over Clinton. And if he had chosen a truly talented manager like Romney, I would certainly have stayed quieter. Palin is just a deal-breaker for me.

Palin may be a good ol' girl from the backwoods but she's done a competent job as governor in Alaska. [...] Would I have felt better with Romney or Giuliani as McCain's running mate? Absolutely.

Me too. Heck, I would have been more comfortable if Fred "Ultra-Relaxed" Thompson had been chosen for the #2 slot.

As for her competence, how much skill does it take to run an oil-based state during historically high oil prices? And how hard is it to be popular when you rape the oil companies for extra taxes, which you then redistribute to the peons? Every man, woman and infant in Alaska got at least an extra $2,000 from Palin's anti-corporate socialist income redistribution scheme. Oh, but that's right, it's not socialist redistribution of wealth if you're Republican. Just like the partial nationalization of our financial sector is barely palatable when done by a Republican, but would be the death of the nation if done by Obama. Yeah, the Dems really have a lock on double standards, sure they do.

Sorry, Palin's a deal-breaker, for me and for a majority of Americans.

[TinCow]

Oh, don't get me started. Everytime I bring up a flat tax rate, I get called a racist and a bigot and an elistist snob. Of course any progressive taxing scheme is inherently socialist. And the exemptions most politicians (of both flavors) write in for themselves and their friends (Obama pays at the 2nd lowest tax bracket, despite feeling its his duty to pay more, btw) make it corrupt socialism. See, this is what drives me insane.

I COULD stomach socialism. I would pass on the UK or the Netherlands, but someplace like Norway or Sweden, where socialism actually tries to meet its stated goals instead of just being a money grab for fat cats in the capital city, that's much more palatable. I don't like seeing my disposable income evaporate, but if the government is actually putting money into things I need, that's much more tolerable.

But buying every incarcerated felon his own Playstation, paying for transgender operations, setting up a permanent work-free welfare middle class? And oh yeah, the guys in Washington don't have to pay taxes? All the while, my kids are getting the end of the stick? Yeah, that's more than I can stomach. And to have ivory tower snobs tell me to shut up and quit griping and just pay... well, it makes me a touch irritable.

Just to avoid coming off like a party-line nutjob, I'd like to clarify a few things. I did say it is entirely proper to complain about how the money is spent. I fully believe that if the government was better managed and more efficient, it could accomplish far more with all tax income at half its current value. I am actively upset about the things our government funds and refuses to fund in varying degrees, and I fully expect that wasteful spending to continue no matter who is in office.

I am 'ok' with Obama's tax increases because they are relatively modest, I believe the people they will be inflicted upon can afford them, and I believe it is worth it to pay that extra amount of money to achieve the social reforms I want out of the Democrats. I am, above all else, a social issue voter. I voted against Clinton in the primary specifically because of her stance on censorship. If John McCain abandoned the conservative Christian stances on social issues, it might have been a difficult choice for me to make. In an ideal world, I would like to see everyone's taxes lowered and I do believe that is easily possible with proper governmental fiscal responsibility.

I do not want to take anyone's money, nor do I want the government taking any more of my money, but I don't live in the fantasy world where I have that option. My choice is conservative Christian policies on social issues and lower taxes, or liberal policies on social issues and higher taxes. I am thus forced to weigh the importance of taxes and social issues, and for the majority of my life social issues have always come out on top.

If a flat tax Libertarian had an actual legitimate shot at the Presidency, I would probably defect.

[Don Corleone]

The dude never says "income redistribution," he says "redistributive change," which could mean just about anything. He was being an impenetrable wonk, not a rabble-rousing commie. Get your insults straight. A legal blogger on the topic:

If this alarmed you, chances are, you are not a law professor. Let me tell you that, in this radio interview from 2001, Obama is making the most conventional observation about the limits of constitutional law litigation: The courts will recognize rights to formal equality, but they hesitate to enforce those rights with remedies that become too expensive or require too much judicial supervision and they resist identifying rights to economic equality. Such matters are better handled by legislatures, and courts tend to defer to legislatures for this reason.

Obama was not showing disrespect for constitutional law in any of this. More radical law professors would criticize the courts for not engaging in more expansive interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause and for failing to provide much more expensive, invasive remedies. He did not do that. He accepted the limits the courts had recognized and advised against the unfruitful pursuit of economic justice in the judicial forum. It's a political matter. That is a moderate view of law.

I just don't get it — you love to rip on judges who "legislate from the bench," but when Obama says that the civil rights campaign should have depended less on courts and more on political process, that's a bad thing?

Drudge is linking to the video clip with the headline "2001 OBAMA: TRAGEDY THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT." No, no, no, no. That is absolutely misstated. Shame on Drudge! Obama said:

One of the... tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think, there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.

He's saying that civil rights activists made a tragic mistake by fighting for their cause in the judicial forum. It's part of his separation-of-powers point. Changes that involve complex economic choices need to be made in the political sphere. He never says he wishes the courts would have done more. He acknowledges the limitations of law and courts.

Let's play fair people. Words have meaning. Read carefully and don't distort.

I think you're being intentionally obtuse on this. He's discussing action in the courts versus a legislative agenda as a less appropriate means to an end he desires. He's not discussing the merits of seeking redress in the courts, he's naming it as an inappropriate vehicle to what he wanted to accomplish. As for 'redistributive change' versus income redistribution, in light of the fact that he was talking about personal wealth and people's incomes, I'm going to quote one of your guys and say "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck". But I'll be sure to send a nice email off to the DNC and say you hit every talking point precisely.

I'm not ripping him for acknowledging that the legislature is a more appropriate vehicle for his wealth redistribution goal. I applaud him for that. I'm ripping him for having it as a goal in the first place. If I scold my teenager for talking with food in their mouth while shouting obscenities, and my child decides that she should wait until the food is gone before resuming shouting obscenities, I might give them partial credit, but the major offense of the obscenities (the wealth redistribution, or the redistributive change if you prefer) remains.

[Lemur]

And you dismiss the opinions of the legal blogger out of hand because ...?

[Xiahou]

And you dismiss the opinions of the legal blogger out of hand because ...?

I'll take that one:
1)Because he's a blogger. That give him no more credibility than you or I. Just because you use someone else on the Internet to make an argument for you doesn't make it authoritative.

2)More importantly, the scholarly legal blogger didn't comment on "redistribution"- he just said the same thing that Don has been saying. Obama acknowledged that the legislature is a better path to his redistributive goals than the courts.

Now, speaking for myself. I take little comfort in Obama's acknowledgment that the courts have historically been a bad vehicle for redistribution, considering that he'd be the one choosing who gets appointed to the courts.

And how hard is it to be popular when you rape the oil companies for extra taxes, which you then redistribute to the peons? Every man, woman and infant in Alaska got at least an extra $2,000 from Palin's anti-corporate socialist income redistribution scheme.

Oh the irony, it hurts! Explain Obama's tax plan again.....

[Lemur]

1)Because he's a blogger. That give him no more credibility than you or I. Just because you use someone else on the Internet to make an argument for you doesn't make it authoritative.

See, this is what happens when you don't click the links. The blogger is a she, not a he, and she's a law professor with a wide readership in the legal community. But don't let that get in your way.

Oh the irony, it hurts!

JUst like it's hurt for the last eight years of socialist redistribution and nationalization/bailouts of corporations that are "too big to fail," or does it hurt in some other way?

To move on to more amusing matters, here we have a study in contrasts. A minute from the actual porn film, Who's Nailin' Sarah Palin (safe for work), as opposed to Thandie Morton and Ricky Gervais reading the exact same scene. The weird thing is that I think the porn actors did a better job with the dialogue ...

Best line: "Come on, you tree-hugging hippie! What're you waiting for, Congressional approval?"

[Spino]

I heard about that one. Redistribution: to quote Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Fezzik, rip his arms off!

I've already seen the full transcript and it is Obama's implied position on the economic meaning of 'redistributive change' is what I'm talking about. Being an 'impenetrable wonk' for using the term 'redistributive change' doesn't excuse him of his implied position. Obama believes the Civil Rights movement should have concentrated more on bringing about economic 'redistributive change' via legislation and not the Supreme Court. How this absolves him of anything is beyond me. Why would he feel compelled to declare their failed strategy as being tragic unless he was sympathetic or supportive of the cause of economic 'redistributive change'? Were Obama ideologically neutral or opposed to economic 'redistributive change' then you can bet the word tragic would have never used to describe that failed strategy. And let me take a moment to attack the ridiculous phrase 'redistributive change'. Christ, talk about a cleverly politicized phrase masquerading as you know what! It immediately brings to mind George Carlin's act where he attacks the politicizing of words in order to remove the emotional impact of their original meaning (i.e. from 'shell shock' to 'battle fatigue' to the politicially palatable 'post-traumatic stress disorder').

Furthermore the redistribution of wealth via a progressive income tax was already in place at the time of the Civil Rights movement (and during a time when the rich paid a helluva lot more in income tax than they do now) so what in blazes could Obama be talking about when he drops the phrase 'redistributive change' within the context of an economic discussion relating to the Civil Rights movement?!?

Beyond that let's keep in mind that any legislation which deals with 'redistributive change' of the economic variety still needs to pass the SCOTUS Constitutional litmus test so ultimately having an ideological favorable court is in your best interest... if you're inclined towards that sort of ideology... which I'm sure Obama is not...

Being an Independent in Brooklyn sucks major eggs. Say bye-bye to ever voting in a primary again.

Again?!? I have yet to vote in a primary! I'm not losing any sleep over it though.

[Xiahou]

See, this is what happens when you don't click the links. The blogger is a she, not a he, and she's a law professor with a wide readership in the legal community. But don't let that get in your way.

Uh-oh. That makes her authoritative then, obviously. We'd better all defer to her.... wait isn't there a logical fallacy for this?

I guess I'll just dredge up a poli sci blogger who says Obama is a communist and then that too will be irrefutable.

And then there's the second point, where it was noted that she doesn't even refute the argument that Don made- it's just restating the same point you claimed earlier. But nevermind that- you said a legal scholar agrees with you. Therefore you're right.

JUst like it's hurt for the last eight years of socialist redistribution and nationalization/bailouts of corporations that are "too big to fail," or does it hurt in some other way?

We've been doing bailouts for 8yrs? Wow, where have I been? Regardless, I'm sure the Democrats will do much better with absolute control. They had been all rah-rah about reining in Fannie/Freddie afterall.

[Don Corleone]

I read the blogger's position, and she's building the same strawman you are. Nobody is criticizing Obama for trying to use the courts in an surreptitious way to sidestep the will of the people as expressed by the legislature on this particular issue, but your blogger scolds me for being a dummy for thinking that Obama is. Again, for the 20th time, I don't.

I. GET. IT. He was saying "Hey folks, if really want to get everyone's money spread around, we really should have done it in legislature. The courts were a bad choice to focus our energies on for that purpose. That's not the court's fault, that's not their job. It's ours, for not going and getting the money out of the legislature" Got it. Loud and clear.

But none of any of this changes his prima facta assumption that redistributing the wealth was a positive goal. Neither you nor your legal eagle buddy have made a compelling argument about predisposition, the inherent underlying assumption that redistributive change was a positive goal that was tragic in that it was not realized (granted, in the context of Obama saying they should have gone to legislatures, it wasn't the court's fault, just in case you really honestly still think I'm hung up there...).

[CrossLOPER]

See, this is what happens when you don't click the links. The blogger is a she, not a he, and she's a law professor with a wide readership in the legal community. But don't let that get in your way.

[Lemur]

Uh-oh. That makes her authoritative then, obviously. We'd better all defer to her.... wait isn't there a logical fallacy for this?

Oh, so directly responding to your argument is a logical fallacy. Who knew?

Because he's a blogger. That give him no more credibility than you or I.

Your entire point was that a blogger has no credibility. So I respond and point out that this person actually is a lawyer and a legal scholar, and you tell me that I'm illogically appealing to authority. Create circular reasoning much?

But nevermind that- you said a legal scholar agrees with you. Therefore you're right.

Wow, you think you have a winning issue here, don't you? Again, your initial reaction to my quotes from Althouse were to say, and I quote: "Because he's a blogger. That give him no more credibility than you or I." Refuting that does not qualify as an "appeal to authority," no matter how many times you repeat the talking point.

Crossloper, did you want to add anything to this sterling debate, or were you keen to show your command of smilies? Hate to tell you that Tribesman has you beat on that front.

Don C, I understand what you're saying now. Thanks for having the patience to walk me through it. I'm going to think about it, and read the entire transcript of this 2001 interview.

Spino, here's a handy interactive guide to the Palin effect.

[CrossLOPER]

Crossloper, did you want to add anything to this sterling debate, or were you keen to show your command of smilies? Hate to tell you that Tribesman has you beat on that front.

He uses a hot key. That does not count.

[Lemur]

Don C, doing a little more reading on the subject, it really does seem that "redistributive change" is often used as legal shorthand for things like equal access to an attorney, educational access, etc. It does not need to mean commutard nirvana. Maybe that's what Obama meant in '01, but it's not necessarily so.

Lastly, I'm feeling really weirded out by this whole idea that progressive taxation and any form of safety net is "socialist." It's just ... strange, man. Is Obama's tax plan more socialist than Reagan's? Than Nixon's? Than Eisenhower's? How is he special and different and socialist?

This kinda sums it up:

With very few exceptions, all American politicians, including both presidential candidates, are in favor of a progressive income tax system and welfare policies (such as Medicare and Social Security) that "redistribute wealth." Barack Obama is more enthusiastic about "spreading the wealth around" than his Republican rival. But that does not make him a "Socialist." The McCain camp is wrong to suggest that the Illinois senator advocated an "wealth redistribution" role for the Supreme Court in his 2001 interview.

[PanzerJaeger]

Dear JohnnyMac,

I voted for you today. Over the course of this election cycle I convinced 6 of my friends who normally would not have voted to pull the lever for you, and I talked 3 of my liberal-minded friends into doing the same. I put stickers on all the family vehicles, and yard signs in the lawns(all free btw ). I even wrote an uncharacteristically political note on Facebook urging practically everyone I know to vote for you.

You weren't my first choice, and the way you've run your campaign has reinforced my initial feelings about you. You've been a bumbling mess. However, you are by far the better choice to lead our nation through war and economic downturn, a fact made clear in comparison to your opponent. I've done all I can for you, even though I don't think you've done all you could for the Republican cause. Good luck with the Bradley Effect, and I'm done.

[Don Corleone]

Don C, doing a little more reading on the subject, it really does seem that "redistributive change" is often used as legal shorthand for things like equal access to an attorney, educational access, etc. It does not need to mean commutard nirvana. Maybe that's what Obama meant in '01, but it's not necessarily so.

Lastly, I'm feeling really weirded out by this whole idea that progressive taxation and any form of safety net is "socialist." It's just ... strange, man. Is Obama's tax plan more socialist than Reagan's? Than Nixon's? Than Eisenhower's? How is he special and different and socialist?

This kinda sums it up:

With very few exceptions, all American politicians, including both presidential candidates, are in favor of a progressive income tax system and welfare policies (such as Medicare and Social Security) that "redistribute wealth." Barack Obama is more enthusiastic about "spreading the wealth around" than his Republican rival. But that does not make him a "Socialist." The McCain camp is wrong to suggest that the Illinois senator advocated an "wealth redistribution" role for the Supreme Court in his 2001 interview.

I rate the individual's personal economic bent not on the absolute value of their collectivism but the derivative of the curve. Reagan put the stake in the heart of the economic walking undead that was the "Great Society". He was still fighting "war on poverty" type mentality, and he did it all in the face of a Democrat Congress for 8 years (well, 2 years of a Republican senate). He pushed taxes down, though granted, they were higher than they are now. Bush1 raised taxes, and amazingly enough... a Republican that raised taxes... 1 term.

Next came Clinton. Say what you want about renting out the Lincoln bedroom and stealing the spoons, this boy also knew how to cut taxes. Again, downward trend on the collectivist scale, but taxes still higher than now. He also got bonus points for cutting welfare.

Other than cutting taxes, Bush 1 has been a dismal failure. Medicare Part D alone makes me cringe every time I think of it.

I'm not necessarily opposed to higher taxes. I'm opposed to Democrats showing up and kicking me out of my house so they can give it to some clowns fresh out of college that don't want to work, just want to sit around and smoke dope and play X-box all day. Sorry, I know in current sound bytes, that mean's I'm a bad citizen and don't care enough about America, but if people are going to put their hands in my wallet, I expect them to do something productive with what they take out.

In short, Obama's not going to get a free pass for breaking his "only the top 5%" tax raise promise before he's even elected by comparing himself to previous presidents. Not from me.

[Lemur]

I'm not necessarily opposed to higher taxes. I'm opposed to Democrats showing up and kicking me out of my house so they can give it to some clowns fresh out of college that don't want to work, just want to sit around and smoke dope and play X-box all day.

A vivid image, I'll grant you that, but does this really seem likely to you?

[ICantSpellDawg]

My prediction is that McCain will win the popular and Obama will win the Electoral! Place your bets!

[Strike For The South]

Obama both.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Don C, doing a little more reading on the subject, it really does seem that "redistributive change" is often used as legal shorthand for things like equal access to an attorney, educational access, etc. It does not need to mean commutard nirvana. Maybe that's what Obama meant in '01, but it's not necessarily so.

David Bernstein from the Volokh Conspiracy says:

FURTHER UPDATE: Obama advisor Cass Sunstein tells Politico's Ben Smith that Obama wasn't referring to redistribution of wealth in general,but "to the narrower forms of redistribution -- education, legal filing fees, legal representation, and other issues --that had been discussed in the case Obama cited and in discussions around it.

That's very hard to swallow, if one looks at the transcript.

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, it says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

[Bolded parts are the author's]

Lemur, as for tax raising leading to one term - what of Bill Clinton? Who Dan Quayle rightly predicted who renege on his promise to only raise taxes on the rich and yet got reelected.

And as long as I remember you've touted gridlock. Now, with the prospect of a dem super-majority, you swear that off? A bit odd.

CR

[Lord Winter]

Obama both.

Agreed the Bradly effect isn't big enough to skew the polls to a McCain victory. I don't really see how McCain could win this.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Agreed the Bradly effect isn't big enough to skew the polls to a McCain victory. I don't really see how McCain could win this.

I think that there is a real possibility of McCain coming back right before the election. People will get frightened... and then Obama will still be President. I wouldn't put it past McCain to win the popular.

It is a big stretch, but it is possible. I think McCain is absolutely going to lose, but by what split? I'd bet that it will be a smaller margin than many anticipate.

[Lemur]

David Bernstein from the Volokh Conspiracy says:

Oh, but you're quoting a blog, and Xiahou has told us that blogs are irrelevant. And if you think the blogger has some qualifications to speak on the subject, you're falling into an appeal to authority rhetorical error. You heard it right here in this thread, kids.

Lemur, as for tax raising leading to one term - what of Bill Clinton? Who Dan Quayle rightly predicted who renege on his promise to only raise taxes on the rich and yet got reelected.

Dan Quayle—man, you keep some fast company, Rabbit. If Congress hadn't thought to impeach Bill Clinton, he would have been a one-term President.

And as long as I remember you've touted gridlock. Now, with the prospect of a dem super-majority, you swear that off? A bit odd.

You know what's freaky? How nobody has raised this issue, and I've never addressed it. That's just weird, 'cause you would think that, I don't know, Spino, Don Corleone and TuffStuff might have brought it up at some point. You'd better ask them why they're going easy on me.

-edit-

Re: Electoral College/popular vote split, isn't that rather rare? By my count, it's only happened three times in the history of our Republic. 1876, 1888 and 2000, and that's it. So if I were a gambling man, I wouldn't bet on such a split this time.

[Strike For The South]

I think that there is a real possibility of McCain coming back right before the election. People will get frightened... and then Obama will still be President. I wouldn't put it past McCain to win the popular.

It is a big stretch, but it is possible. I think McCain is absolutely going to lose, but by what split? I'd bet that it will be a smaller margin than many anticipate.

I thought the same way a couple of weeks ago but now there are just to many fissures in McCain/Palin to win IMO

[Lemur]

This could help. I can't believe the incompetence of the contractors creating these voting machines. I fully expect that we'll be hearing about corruption and vote-tampering somewhere down the line.

-edit-

More details:

In early balloting in West Virginia, Texas, and Tennessee, voters using e-voting machines made by Nebraska-based Election Systems & Software (ES&S) have reported the "flipping" of their vote from the presidential candidate they selected to the candidate's rival. In some cases, voters said their choice had been changed from Democrat Barack Obama to Republican John McCain while others reported just the opposite.

The reports prompted the Brennan Center for Justice and a group called Verified Voting on Tuesday to write voting officials in 16 states where the ES&S iVotronic machine is used to be on the lookout for problems.

"There is a real chance that voters using iVotronic machines in your state will experience 'vote flopping' similar to that experienced by voters in West Virginia," the letter warned. It went on to urge poll workers to recalibrate machines when in doubt, and when possible to confirm voters' candidate choices with a verified paper trail.

To paraphrase Heart of Darkness, "The incompetence ... the incompetence ..."

[woad&fangs]

I thought the same way a couple of weeks ago but now there are just to many fissures in McCain/Palin to win IMO

There is the possibility that Obama's college age supporters will get cocky about the big lead. Then, instead of voting on November 4th, they'll stay at home and have wild commie orgies. McCain wins by the slimmest of Margins.

Outside of that scenario I don't see McCain winning.

[Koga No Goshi]

Oh, don't get me started. Everytime I bring up a flat tax rate, I get called a racist and a bigot and an elistist snob. Of course any progressive taxing scheme is inherently socialist. And the exemptions most politicians (of both flavors) write in for themselves and their friends (Obama pays at the 2nd lowest tax bracket, despite feeling its his duty to pay more, btw) make it corrupt socialism. See, this is what drives me insane.

I COULD stomach socialism. I would pass on the UK or the Netherlands, but someplace like Norway or Sweden, where socialism actually tries to meet its stated goals instead of just being a money grab for fat cats in the capital city, that's much more palatable. I don't like seeing my disposable income evaporate, but if the government is actually putting money into things I need, that's much more tolerable.

But buying every incarcerated felon his own Playstation, paying for transgender operations, setting up a permanent work-free welfare middle class? And oh yeah, the guys in Washington don't have to pay taxes? All the while, my kids are getting the end of the stick? Yeah, that's more than I can stomach. And to have ivory tower snobs tell me to shut up and quit griping and just pay... well, it makes me a touch irritable.

I actually said I understood your reasons and could respect them Don. :) I consider them sincere coming from you. I do not consider them sincere when coming from someone of the socioeconomic strata of let's say people with oil tankers named after them or connections to the royalty of other countries. I think in many cases with the super-rich, it's disingenuous of them to pretend that they support a so called "fair tax rate" for any reason other than self-interest.

[Koga No Goshi]

I am amazed at the explosion of tantrum taking over "wealth redistribution." Rather than quote a bunch of people and make responses, all I can do is return to my earlier sentiment on the topic: I don't understand how people are so up in arms about this as if graduated income tax or redistribution of wealth are brand new concepts that will begin when/if Obama takes office. All that we are talking about is reversing the trend of economic policies to favor and reward the wealthiest and most privileged Americans and corporations which George W. Bush implemented, and a tax cut for working families.

We are, in effect, going to be returning to the status quo if Obama is elected. Not moving into some new age of super-radical socialism in our tax policies.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I see Obama winning by a decent margin in the electoral college (ten points or more, possibly even breaking 300) while securing an even larger percentage of the popular vote.

I'd just like to note for those hoping for a Bradley Effect (something which I would label extremely cynical and generally disgusting) that there has generally been a reverse Bradley Effect of 3 percent since the mid nineties, so good luck with that!

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm kinda with Spino on this one. Starting somewhere before the 2006 election cycle, you became the self-anointed prophet of gridlock. Now that your party is warming up for a supermajority in both houses and the White House, you're all about letting people do things? Not the most consistent position I've ever seen you take.

I can't believe that given the huge problems facing our country right now people believe that the most preferrable course of action is to neuter our government to as great a degree as possible so that no serious change can be allowed to happen. Do you really believe that damage will be minimal, or repair itself, if we simply do nothing and allow the status quo to continue?

I don't really buy the gridlock argument, from anyone-- nothing personal against you, Don. I think that advocating partisan gridlock in government is not only counterproductive, but I see little reason to believe it isn't just selectively applied by the party and voters likely to be in the minority in government. I didn't see any Republicans saying that they needed to vote Dem in '06 because the Bush admin was getting too powerful or there was not enough Democratic opposition to gridlock his administration. On the contrary, the talking point from the GOP was that Dems were obstructionists... how DARE they ask questions of Bush's appointees, and any oppositional vote or even a whisper of possible filibuster was treated as disloyalty of the greatest anti-American McCarthyist order. Dems were castigated as everything from hating America to not supporting the troops to giving aid and succour to America's enemies.

So, I find this whole "now that Reps stand to be the minority, we favor gridlock and limits on partisan power" disingenuous and an argument of convenience from people who have voted Republican in the last couple of elections. Republicans have given up the right to non-hypocritically talk about how they are for limited Federal power or limited partisan power in government, because they have amply proven they support explosions of both, provided they are under Republicans.

And Don... on a direct note, it really is starting to look like you are very eagerly grasping onto every possible doomsday scenario about Dems in power, and asserting it as "things will definitely happen this way and we are all screwed." I think the partisan seams are beginning to show.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Terrorism;

It's what has held this country in the grip of fear for at least the past 7 years. Terrorists seek to create political change or spread an ideology through fear.

All I've heard from the Republican camp for the past several months is he's too "risky", or that he might be a Muslim or have ties to the Kenyan government, or that he might have similar ideas to his former pastor, that he might be a marxist, a socialist, a terrorist sympathizer, an Arab, a far-left Commie Pinko, and how dangerous he and his "liberal allies" are going to "destroy America" with their crazy, tinfoil-hat ideas are going to bankrupt this country, open our borders to criminals and terrorists, take away our freedoms, ignore the threat Al-Qaeda poses to this country, allow our economy to fail and create new bloated government programs which will mortgage our children's future.

Count the charges, count them up. All these smears have been cast towards Barack Obama by parts of the Republican machine.

1. He's obviously not a Muslim, because he picked one really dumb Christian pastor. Duh.
2. He has no ties to the Kenyan government, and there has never been any evidence thereof.
3. He publicly repudiated and renounced Wright and now has absolutely nothing to do with his dumb ---.
4. He's not a Marxist. If he's a Marxist, then FDR was a Marxist.
5. If social security and medicare are socialist, then Obama is a socialist. Then again, McCain is too. By the way, how much does the Alaskan government give each person? That's right, Palin is MORE of a socialist than Obama in that regard, which makes her a hypocrite.
6. Obama wants to go after Bin Laden, even if it means sending a strike against him inside Pakistan's totally ungoverned Afghan border. Which makes him more hawkish on terrorism than McCain.
7. He's a racial mix of white and black, and he's not Arab. Not that it should matter to ANYONE, ANYWHERE. *head slams against wall repeatedly in disgust
8. Commie Pinko... Oh yes, he is a commie pinko. I'm sorry I forgot, and he's also an terminator from the future come back to destroy John McConnor.
9. Under Bill Clinton and Obama's present-day "liberal allies in Congress" America prospered. Remember?
10. Democrats have had a majority in Congress, and held the executive before. Funny, America wasn't destroyed. In fact, I believe it got... stronger. *gasp*
11. America is already bankrupt (in terms of owing more money than we collect each year in federal taxes), but George Bush and his "conservative" (They aren't conservative by MY measure) allies in Congress doubled the national debt and caused a budget deficit of 500 billion dollars. Ouch.
12. Bush has done nothing to secure the borders, something I as a "conservative"/moderate feel is absolutely unacceptable. 20 million (approximately) illegal aliens roam free, and who is defending them? The REPUBLICANS and their corrupt friends in the business world. Who picks all those fruits in the "real America", the "red states"? I believe they are called "undocumented workers" there.
13. Under Bush, we lost certain freedoms... something about unwarranted wiretapping and being shuffled off to Gitmo without just cause. No biggie, right?
14. Bush has not defeated Al-Qaeda after 7 years. He's ignoring Bin Laden and the taliban. What happened to our war hawk? He's been replaced by a lame duck.
15. Under Bush, our economy failed. His solution to fix the economy is what? Oh yeah. Socialist.
Except this time, big government is bailing out big business, instead of poor people. Way to go.
16. Bush proposed "fixing" social security by privatizing it and putting your savings in the stock markets, which... crashed... under his watch.
17. Bush's "big government" solution to education, "No Child Left Behind" went underfunded in a Republican controlled Conrgess, and left millions of children behind.

18. McCain supported Bush, by his own admission, more than 90% of the time.


The solution the Republicans have for their losing three debates, two wars, a national budget, a sense of leadership, all credibility, and their conservative credentials? Spread fear and uncertainty. Specifically, about their opponent, who will likely become the next President of the United States. Also, they divided America into "real" and "fake", "Small towns" and those evil suburbs and big cities. They called their opponent socialist while supporting all that money Alaskans get for having an oil-exporting state, and also supporting a 700 billion dollar market bailout, with 150 billion dollars in what McCain calls "christmas tree ornaments".

Is McCain attacking Christmas????

No, of course not. But if I were a Republican strategist trying to smear John McCain, based on the history of Republican strategy, I'd say that John McCain is attacking Christmas, instead of I dunno debating the issues. Not one McCain supporter responded to my challenge of a debate, one-on-one.

All I hear from you McCain supporters is worry and fear. Where are all your big ideas? Can you try to win this country back, or even govern effectively, without invoking fear?




Honestly, it's disingenuous, it's disgusting, and I'm tired of it. That's why I would rather switch sides and vote for Obama, a liberal, than continue to support what Republicans have become, which is nothing even remotely resembling conservatism.