U.S. Presidential Election 2008

I would have said that the BBC was objective about the US actually though most of our EU neighbours would see it as pro-US

uberridiculous eh? Is that why McCain has distanced himself from the aide's remarks and the aide has made a public apology?

The Madrid bombings were timed to coincide with an election in Spain and it would not surprise me if there was not some plot or other top target this US election. But to have the flames of that fanned by an aide to a candidate is the height of stupidity.

Bohemka, perhaps your assumptions that he must be a stooge if he votes a certain way are what is off-base. I'd say the guy who suffered from torture and has access to intelligence information is more likely to be better informed than you are. In continuing with the theme of there being less than meets the eye with regards to accusations hurled at him, what McCain voted against was a bill that would have applied Army standards for interrogation to the CIA. The Army standards for interrogation are in a field manual, which is a public document. CIA (non-coercive) interrogation techniques aren't published, but they would be known to every terrorist if the ones from the Army manual were the only ones they could use (let's not forget that Al-Qaeda is known to have its own manual instructing its members on defeating interrogation techniques). The claim by McCain opponents that he voted against banning waterboarding is very inaccurate and a mispresentation based solely upon the fact that the Army manual specifically bans waterboarding. McCain did not vote FOR waterboarding, and has consistently made it clear that he is an opponent of it. At any rate, CIA policy now explicitly forbids waterboarding.

Obama didn't even bother to vote on the bill to which you are referring, BTW.

Maybe you should have listened better. The "experience is relevant" does not mean it may or may not carry more weight in a voter's decision, but it is relevant.

A person is the sum of their experiences, some more relevant than others.

Senator McCain will have to explain how his experience in the military helped prepare or not prepare him to become President.

Senator Obama will have to explain how his lack of experience in the military helped prepare or not prepare him to become President.

Their answers will determine the relevance a voter places on their experience, or lack of it.

Okay I thought he meant relevant to the ability to run the country, not relevant to voters perception. Ill agree that it, sadly, is relevant to the latter.

BTC, perhaps you need to read a bit more carefully:



Although what the aide said was very stupid, do you really think that no terrorist was conjuring up such thoughts prior to him saying it? Do you think that they are so passive and unimaginative that they sit around waiting for direction from US presidential campaign aides? It is über-ridiculous to suggest that any campaign aide wants one or is encouraging/daring one.

McCain distanced himself from the remarks and made the apology because he felt they were disrespectful to his opponent.


Sure, BTC, "EU neighbors" see the BBC as pro-US. Which "EU neighbors" have said anything of the sort (not that there is any substance to such a ridicluous claim).

For terrorists, the US election is a tempting target, but the situation with Spain is different, even before the attack a large majority of the population had opposed the alliance with the US on the Iraq invasion, the 11M attack just reinforced the digust that the population had for the leaders, and the silly game of blaming ETA did not help at all. I would say that this was a one-off situation due to other circumstances. A terrorist attack on US soil might produce other undesired effects.
As for McCain's experience in Hanoi, a Cuban-Spanish psychologist/journalist (renaissance man) interviewed McCain while the latter was in captivity.


Although McCain's experience is an interesting addition to the Senate, his wild temper tantrums are not without danger for a commander in chief. Can't wait for the debates.

Voters perceptions = vote = reality. Sad for some, not for others.

If we didn't have voter perceptions (Human trait), then we could just load a set of variables into a computer, let it do some number crunching and then tell us who should be elected or appointed. At least it would be logical. I just wonder who would decide what variables would be relevant.

Me, obviously. If we're going to evaluate on dumb qualifications, I submit that whoever can bong a beer faster is more qualified.

So you're the reason Bush is in office.

Come on you have to be smart enough to understand gravity to bong a beer... Plus blow kinda makes your stomach contract a bit, its harder to consume as fast...

But seriously, its not a question of variables that choose an absolute right candidate, but you should be elected based on policy and governmental experience, not on if you survived boot camp.

His Congressional-Navy liason position should be pushed far more than the fact he was unlucky enough to be tortured, the former is at least some kind of political experience and the later is just a pull on flag waving heart strings.

Not sure about this. The PP (the center-right party of Jose Aznar) was leading in the polls prior to the terror attack in Madrid in spite of the unpopularity of Aznar's support for taking action in Iraq. Yes, blaming ETA was incredibly stupid, but what do you expect from a party with roots among Francoists?

BTW, Spain is generally considered to have the most left-leaning electorate in Western Europe.


Do you think no President ever got very angry about something? Keep dreaming.

But what if you quit boot camp? Would that mean your a "wimp"? Or incapable of finishing something you started? Or were you just mature enough to realize that you had reached your limitations and decided it was better for you and the service to split company?

Didn't Bill Clinton have some "blow-ups" in the White House?

A real man doesn't quit boot camp, they go private pyle on their drill sergeant.

anecdotally several Germ,an friends and one French friend have told me they see the UK media, even the left wing media, as highly pro-American. I guess that is two few to base generalisations from but my point was I did not think the BBC was either pro or anti US.

you'd hope I were so naive, but the question is about McCain's marbles. Ad hominen arguments are not a great technique, but this guy is five cans short of a six-pack. The debates will be great, at some point he will blow up. We should organize a proper Debate party at some pub to watch it as a group. This will be much better than the Spain-Italy match on Sunday (boooooring)

By who?

Spain elected the Partido Popular, a right of centre party, that served as the government of spain for 8 years until 2004. I would have said the Spanish electorate, like most of Western Europe, is broadly social democratic and therefore alternates between centre left and centre right parties. I see no reason to consider them more leftwing than for example the French or the Swedes or indeed the Germans when it comes down to it.

Villager, I watched Sunday's match with a cool detachment since I am supporting Germany. Haven't followed the Spanish national team since Javier Clemente was the trainer.

About your contention about McCain, we'll see if the putative scenario you envision actually pans out. I doubt it, though.

BTC, yes, of course, Spain has both a center-left and a center-right, but the median voter in Spain is somewhat to the left of the median voter in other Western European countries. BTW, only between 2000 and 2004 did the PP rule alone. Since 1982, they have only been in power for those eight years (two parliamentary terms).

BTC, you might find the following article of interest:

"Voter ideology in Western democracies: An update" published in the January 2003 edition of the European Journal of Political Research. The authors find that of 25 Western democracies, only Norway has a median voter to the left of Spain's in the 1974-1998 period.

I would imagine that it depends on the issue as to which country is the leftest. There are issues such as universal free healthcare where the UK population would be very much to the left of anyone else.

Here's an article in which a Democratic strategist who specializes in rural areas discusses Obama and rural voters:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...15/245uswoq.asp

it is a long way to November, and Obama is likeable enough
this guy was a teacher in Chicago for 10 years, he knows how to deal with a rowdy bunch
between now and November he will gain more sympathizers,
whereas McCain's can only stand by as his supporters die off of old age.

Note that Obama is now free to move to the center, the democratic party primary season is over.

I will have to read the article about the left-leaning Spanish electorate, but the conclusion seems odd.
Note that the Nationalist parties (PNV, Ciu, CC) all represent businessmen and professionals, who by nature are somewhat conservative and are more interested in lowering their taxes than any specfic ideology. If you add up all these groups with the PP (conservative and Christian-democrat coalition) you have a workable majority. The regional parties form a coalition with either major party just to gain power, playing the power-broker position (bisagra). This is what the FDP or the Greens used to do in Germany, and is what Lani Guinier suggested as a way of enfranchising African-Americans in the US.

As for Norway, don't make me laugh! Oil revenues plus a racially homogeneous society make it easy for them to appear socialist.

What the hell are you yammering about now? NObama was a teacher? BS. Have to notify his rumor website and get them to refute that one. The only thing NObama did in Chicago was attend that radical black church...Now, you want to talk about a rowdy bunch!

I am on a mission to enlighten the great unwashed.
from BO's wikipedia entry


You are, as you would say in your colloquial English, "owned"

Standby Village Idiot while I get you some reading material...NObama never taught constitutional law or anything else. I own you.

Has BadBob gone to the pink side and wants some boy on boy action with Villager?

Oh, yeah, those students at the University of Chicago Law School are well known to be a "rowdy bunch," Villager. You may be correct that Obama was a "teacher" for 10 years, but your central argument is flawed.

As for whether Obama is likeable enough, and whether he will gain or lose supporters before November has a great deal to do with how he votes on the FISA issue. Many, many Democrats are furious at the party's capitulation on this issue, which they feel has profound impact on constitutional rights (as do I).

Obama now says he will vote in favor of the FISA bill. If he does, I will go to the polls in November, vote for local offices, and leave the ballot for President blank.

Oh, oh, oh...
Thanks Monkstown.

I have not read about this yet, but I could guess that he will try to appeal to the center on this, and move away from party hard-liners. The guy has his heart set on winning, and is not a leftist by a long shot.

where is Gus Hall when we need him? Angela Davies? Bob Avakin?

@MT - I have no use for BB myself, will auction him off to any reasonable bid.

So your confusion may be excused. He was not really a professor. He was a lecturer.

no confusion, he taught, hence the term Teacher.
Did I say he was full time? tenured? Nope, you dope.

I think you mean Angela Davis. Obama is definitely a leftist, unless you're a Marxist, i.e., a Stalinist or a Trotskyite (as you claim to be).

If Obama does actually move to the center, I wonder what these two will say? Will they call him a traitor as well?


If Pelosi isn't on board with you (let alone the Baron Hills and Jim Marshalls), good luck trying to pass legislation solely with the Barbara Lees of the Democratic Party. Such intercine warfare would be music to BB's ears.

Law school students rowdy in the classroom? Yeah right. That's nothing compared to going toe to toe with the world's worst dictators (as he has said he wishes to do). You're the first person I've encountered to pretend that Obama is "tough".

Good luck relying on the votes of college and high school students to get elected (the turnout rates for elderly voters are much higher).

This is a very tough year for Republicans, so Obama will probably win, but is it too much to ask that a candidate have a bit of substance, not just superficial "likeability" (not of much use in negotiating with dicators)?

Incidentally, Villager, Obama was at Columbia at about the same time you were. Did you cross paths with him?

Not sure, the guy seemed familiar the first time I saw him on TV, before I found out he had been at Columbia. He says that he spent his time there studying (poli-sci), and at anti-aparthid events. I spent my time trying to study (math/economics) and work at the same time, and I was somewhat off to the center-right, so I did not attend any event where he might have spoken.

In any case, his being a Columbia grad is a plus, but hardly the definite reason to select him over McCain.

Here are the rowdy Chicago Law Students!

Toytown Germany
The best political team online EVER

BadBob knows the candidates...

BadBob won't rest at that; he'll follow every lead...

BadBob seeks ownership, comes up dry, because he somehow misinterpreted the very words he copied and pasted as evidence...

Stay tuned...

Sorry, I don't think gutting the 4th Amendment in order to give the telecoms amnesty for breaking the law could really be considered a centrist or leftist move. It's pretty damn far to the right, and nobody can seem to understand why this is happening with the Democrats holding a majority in both houses and Bush's approval rating at 25%.

I used to think people who defended their ignorance about current events and political issues with "there was no difference between the political parties anyway" were at best not thoughtful people. I used to think that it was a no-brainer that companies who illegally gave the government the green light to use their equipment for wire-tapping without warrants should be prosecuted. I thought said prosecution would begin on around January 21, 2009. Now it looks likely that instead, the telecoms will get retroactive immunity, with the full consent of the Democratic leadership, including the presidential candidate. What's next? Should they prosecute Google for NOT cooperating with this illegal program?

Maybe the parties are both the same, after all. If so, I'm voting for neither at the national level.

John McCunt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Euu_DMhsXQo

The issue with immunity is with regards to civil lawsuits, whose potential costs are tremendous. The telecom companies provide an important part of the US infrastructure and the country would be damaged if they were bankrupted by lawsuits- don't forget about things like universal service. What about all the pension plans that hold shares in the telecom companies or the union jobs they provide? Just a few things to consider.

Bush's approval ratings are indeed at record lows for a US President, but those of Congress are even lower (at record lows for the institution).

Here are some articles of interest:




http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArtic...cleID=208700899

I think a lot of people have some unrealistic expectations for what the Democrats will do if they control the White House and Congress starting next year, as seems likely.

I really hate to agree with Conq here, but it's true that a lot of Obama enthusiasts will be disappointed with his swerve towards the center
Primaries and speeches fire up the ideologues, but this is all just a lot of cheerleading on the sidelines.
The players on the field do have some competition going on, but they are also professionals and know that politics is the art of the possible.
You cannot confront and fight all battles simultaneously, Obama is going to have to focus his new-won authority on a few realistic goals.

I have no doubt that Obama will stay true to the progressive platform, but it won't do us any good unless we get rid of the Bush Democrats in the House. These are all either Republicans who have posed as Democrats, or just sell-out scumbags that have voted with the Republicans on most or all of the issues.
Here's the list - find your area's sold-out scumbag Bush-Dem Representative, and make sure you vote them out of a job:
Dist Incumbent
AL-5 Bud Cramer
[retiring in 08]
AR-2 Vic Snyder
AR-4 Mike Ross
AZ-5 Harry Mitchell
AZ-8 Gabrielle Giffords
CA-18 Dennis Cardoza
CA-20 Jim Costa
CA-28 Howard Berman
CO-2 Mark Udall
[running for US Senate]
CO-3 John Salazar
FL-2 Allen Boyd
FL-16 Tim Mahoney
GA-2 Sanford Bishop
GA-8 Jim Marshall
GA-12 John Barrow
GA-13 David Scott
IA-3 Leonard Boswell
[Likely to retire after
IA loses seat in 2010]
IL-3 Daniel Lipinski
IL-8 Melissa Bean
IN-2 Joe Donnelly
IN-8 Brad Ellsworth
IN-9 Baron Hill
KS-2 Nancy Boyda
KS-3 Dennis Moore
KY-6 Ben Chandler
LA-3 Charlie Melancon
MD-2 Dutch Ruppersberger
MD-4 Al Wynn
MD-5 Steny Hoyer
MN-7 Collin Peterson
MO-4 Ike Skelton
MS-4 Gene Taylor
NC-2 Bob Etheridge
NC-7 Mike McIntyre
NC-11 Heath Shuler
ND-0 Earl Pomeroy
NV-1 Shelley Berkley
OH-6 Charles Wilson
OH-18 Zack Space
OK-2 Dan Boren
PA-4 Jason Altmire
PA-10 Chris Carney
PA-13 Allyson Schwartz
PA-17 Tim Holden
SD-0 Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
TN-4 Lincoln Davis
TN-5 Jim Cooper
TN-6 Bart Gordon
TN-8 John Tanner
TX-9 Al Green
TX-17 Chet Edwards
TX-22 Nick Lampson
TX-23 Ciro Rodriguez
TX-27 Solomon Ortiz
TX-28 Henry Cuellar
TX-29 Gene Green
UT-2 Jim Matheson
VA-9 Rick Boucher
WI-3 Ron Kind

Go to http://www.democrats.com/bushdemocrats to find more info and the progressive alternatives identified so far.

Kat, if you think a liberal Democrat suitable to you is going to win a primary (and a general election) in districts represented by, e.g., Shuler or Ellsworth, you are dreaming. Compromise is anyhow a necessity in politics. It's also unreasonable to demand that a Democratic member of Congress never vote with Republicans.

Villager, that $1000 tax break for the middle class proposed by Obama (even if it comes about) will not make up for the ravages of inflation over the years. I'd like to see a larger one, but the country's fiscal position almost certainly precludes it. Another problem is that more than cuts that stoke consumption, we would need tax policies that promote production and investment. Obama implicitly recognizes this by supporting a corporate tax cut, but tax policy that benefits small businesses is what needs particular passage.

Interesting that Kat also thinks Obama won't ever pivot between the center and the left while in office. It's just not possible to give the far left of the Democratic Party or of the American political spectrum all that they want and in the amounts they want it. However, Kat's post suggests that they will, at least initially, assign blame to more moderate Democrats. But things have a way of coming back to the occupant of the White House even if that person is largely or entirely not responsible.

I should clarify that the list of Bush Democrats are not just democrats that occasionally agreed with the Republicans, but those who
voted to give George Bush another $163 billion to occupy Iraq and plunder its oil for another year, even though 68% of Americans want to bring our troops safely home this year, and voted to give immunity to George Bush and the telecoms for illegally wiretapping American citizens even before 9/11, and to allow Bush and the telecoms to keep doing it - thereby shredding the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

By all means, Democrats should cooperate with Republicans where it does good and represents the will of the voters. This is just plain corruption.

Don't hold your breath.

Listen, you can be simplistic and claim that lower taxes on the high income bracket will improve investment
or we can try to deal with the distortionary aspects of the US tax code, and agree to increase revenue, simplify the tax code, and improve future growth prospects all around. However, such a proposal is too complex to deal with within the circus that is the electoral debate. At least Obama has put some realistic options on the table (jokes about the donut tax aside) that will increase revenue. There is certainly lost of scope for reducing special-interest tax breaks, and even a libertarian such as Conq will agree that taxes generally distort price signals much more than direct transfers, since tax breaks often camoflauge incentives in silly political compromises.
Rather than have industries invest significant amounts of money in lobbyists to push through increasingly complex tax breaks, a simplified tax code can incentivize future growth by reducing the uncertainty. A new administration, with an incentive to implement new ideas, is much more likely to take a step in the right direction than simply prolonging the agony under McCain and all the inherited political liabilities. Obama's exposure to behavioural economics when he was in Chicago, and his economics advisors, all portend for a market-friendly approach which is beyond the understanding of the ideologues on both sides of the past culture wars.

Yesterday BB disappeared from the debate without recognizing defeat, I found him later on one of the gay-related themes that are his other hobby. Since this "owning" concept is so intrinsic to his vocabulary, I can only speculate that he is into BDSM. This area is beyond my limited experiences, and hereby offer up my BB ownership to whoever might be a more appropriate master. First bid over 1€ gets the chip/whip.

Kat, you listed over 25% of the House Democrats. Without them you can't pass legislation at all. A better strategy for you would seem to be to focus on electing more Democrats to the Senate in order to get closer to a filibuster-proof majority.

As for this fabled "plundering of Iraqi oil" where is the evidence for it? Evidence that there was a policy of illegal wiretapping of US citizens by the Bush Administration prior to Sept. 11, 2001 is...?

You also seem to have a poor understanding of what FISA is, including the updated versions.


I actually have capital gains taxes in mind, Villager, and you already know that I heartily support a simplification of the tax code. I didn't mention a permanent fix for the AMT in the above post, but that is an absolute necessity. Special-interest tax breaks and subsidies are very much a bipartisan problem (cough Obama and ethanol subsidies).

There obviously will be no be a income tax cut at the upper levels, but if those folks are already going to be hit with a 6.2% Social Security tax rate above $102,000 or $200,000 next year, don't you think raising income taxes and capital gains taxes on this group is a serious disincentive for those who want to start and operate small businesses? Given the need to raise savings rates, increasing cap gains taxes is foolish, especially where it will hit small savers, who, frankly, should be able to save and invest up to a certain level without paying any taxes at all given the ravages of inflation and the fact the money they save has already been subjected to income taxes.

I hope you are correct about Obama's inclination to be market-friendly, but let's not forget that fiscal and tax legislation starts in the House of Representatives, thus it's not only up to him, plus he's made it clear he wants to allocate a lot of money on discretional spending if he does get to the White House. Obama doesn't have some magic formula unavailable to others- nothing like that exists.

As opposed to you, All-Knowing-One.

@Conq. - raising taxes might be a temporary disincentive, but it is the shape of the tax+social costs/income curve that is more significant over the long run.
Small business owners are getting hit by increasing expenses (shipping, primary goods) and competition from low-cost distributors of chinese products, taxes are just part of the game. The mixed signals which industry and business gets from DC is also a problem, the precipitous fall in the dollar has also hurt some companies, but has helped some exporters. In any case, an uncertain business climate has has very real costs in that it is difficult to plan long term investments and research.
Is it worth to invest now in GM because the dollar is cheaper, or will legacy health-care costs finally sweep GM into the dustbin of history? Will petroleum stay at over $130/barrel? Or will the oil shales of Canada and coal conversion bring us back down to around $50. These are much more serious issues than a couple of points more or less on taxes. Short-term solutions like Bushes tax breaks for fat-cats is simply misguided and not favorable to long-term growth. The US continues to run some serious deficits and the danger of more drastic measures is a Damocles sword hanging over future growth. Bush's economic policies were never really market-friendly, simply more of the corporate-state nonsense that bankrupts future growth by giving free reign to "locusts"