U.S. Presidential Election 2008

As they say, it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys.

Sounds to me like we need to look at spending cuts to the extent they are possible. Tax increases wouldn't merely be a temporary discincentive (unfortunately) they would be a license for more spending, but spending that benefits Democratic special interest groups. I'd say tax increases and a lack of fiscal discipline are a significant part of the uncertainty as they portend yet higher taxes in the future and an even more unfavorable climate for small businesses. Agreed that energy issues are very important. What is the Villager stance on offshore drilling and drilling in ANWR?

Everyone benefited from the tax cuts since 2001, but obviously those who paid/pay the lion's share are going to benefit more. If "fat cats" are going to start businesses that employ other people, I don't think we should be complaining about it when those businesses are profitable.

GM had had huge problems for years, even though they actually make some very good cars these days. Part of their problem is that the gas-guzzling SUVs are much more profitable per unit than smaller cars. At any rate, GM has been a terrible investment since at least the 1970s. AFAIK, GM has come to an agreement with the UAW on the legacy health care costs.

Speaking of China, here is an article that should be of great interest:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte..._position=link1

There are several reasons why a weaker dollar has not resulted in a significant narrowing of the trade deficit despite some positive trends in exports, and the article points to one. Another significant one is the persistent gap between savings and investment in the US.

@Kat - I am from NYC, and the mix there is socially liberal (left), fiscally conservative, tolerating a certain degree of socialism (rent stabilization) in order to keep the social peace. Although local fights among Bloomberg, Mark green, Ferrer, Sharpton et al. may be fierce, the local culture is strong enough that the republican mayor is to the left of the national Democratic party. This is why I find it odd that Conqy labels Obama as "left", he should know better. Bella Abzug was "left", Obama is too conservative to even be a Rockefeller Republican.

Rockefeller Republicans are an artifact of another generation. James Jeffords (one of only two RINOs who voted against putting Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court) was the sort of Northeastern liberal that was one. Whether Obama is to the right of that sort of politician is to be seen, but his previous record doesn't provide support for it.

NYC isn't like the rest of America, as Villager well knows. It is disproportionately dependent on the financial services industry, for starters. Nor has it always been fiscally conservative (cough John Lindsay) and whether it is now or not is debatable- the real estate boom, especially in Manhattan, has helped city coffers along with Wall Street. Take a gander at the combined federal, state, and city income tax rates for a New York City resident.

Please explain how Obama is a conservative candidate?

Lease it back to the Mexicans, let them deal with the inferior linkages and secondary costs of production. Oil production produces inflation and corruption, from Texas to SA and Venezuela. A couple of rich-cat families and general misery all around. The US should move up to value-added industries which do not create such pressures on the social structure. Read Fernando Ortiz's Cuban Counterpoint (comparing tabacco and sugar production) or stuff by AO Hirschman to see where I am coming from.

Since civil lawsuits are the only likely route to uncovering the real story about what happened when the government asked the big telecoms to allow them to wiretap US civilians, blocking the lawsuits will be a huge disservice to Americans now and in future.

Anyway, if the telecoms are so important to US infrastructure and can't be hampered in their valiant quest to give us bad service and dropped calls by pesky lawsuits over minor matters such as disobeying federal law, maybe I should be asked to vote for their executive boards instead of for obviously minor characters like US congresspeople and the president. Another reason why it's pointless and insignificant to register a vote for anyone in federal office at all.

@Kat and others: there is a movement afoot, led by Glenn Greenwald of salon.com and others, to raise money for advertising against the most vulnerable of the Blue Dog democrats in their own districts. They've raised more than $300,000 so far.


Go to ActBlue.com to contribute, or read more in Greenwald's column.

http://sendbarackyourbaby.com/

This is the first I have ever heard of this sort of effort by liberal Democrats to try to beat more moderate Democrats in primaries. The people listed by Kat aren't DINOs like Zell Miller was during his last few years in the Senate. I think it's pretty dumb to waste resources in most cases on intraparty battles- to give one example the money spent on Pat Toomey's nomination battle against Arlen Specter in 2004 could have been better spent on the Senate race in Colorado, which the Democrats ended up winning.

@Conquistador: Here is the justification for this action, from Glenn Greenwald, who is much more eloquent on the topic than I could ever be (bolds are mine, though):

Forgive my ignorance but how on earth can the USA have such loose party organisation that candidates for congress can stand on platforms and act in office entirely contrary to their own party? In the Uk that would be immediate grounds for expulsion from the Labour, Conservative and SNP parties and for the LibDems if indeed they ever stood for something long enough to brand one of their members a 'rebel'. Why on earth do the Democrats tolerate candidates like this at all?

cinzia, the list posted by Kat contained some Democratic House members whose only "sin" was not voting to de-fund the troops in Iraq last year (which would have been irresponsible and extremely damaging to troop morale). You're not going to get liberals elected in a lot of these districts (unfortunately don't have time right now to go over them one by one).

Here's something that you can relate to since you live in that part of the US- Al Franken trails in the Minnesota Senate race against a Republican incumbent (incidentally a former Democrat). Isn't that Senate seat in the other party's hands of greater significance than a House seat already held by a Democrat? Why not donate money to that campaign instead of wasting it on intraparty battles? Just sayin'.

BTC, you have noticed something that is a crucial feature of American politics, and one that puzzles many Europeans. McCain is an example of what you have brought up, yet we bizarrely have a number of liberal Democrats who insist he's a clone of GWB in spite of the Arizona senator's voting record and history of being a thorn in Bush's side.

I'm asking a genuine question: don't US parties have manifestos and policy positions that would entail a substantial rebel losing the whip and being éxpelled?

No, because if you kicked that person out, they would still keep their seat and end up voting with the opposing party if not joining it, something you cannot afford in a two-party system with relative parity. Look what happened to then-Representative Phil Gramm in 1983- he was turned out by the Democrats but kept his House seat, and shortly thereafter was elected to the US Senate as a Republican.

seems a bit wonky to me. I know there are good reasons why the US constitution provides for full terms for all who win in congressional elections. But the trade off seems to me to be extremely lax party discipline, a bedrock for graft and the frankly idiotic situation that elected representatives for one party can consistently vote with the opposition without their own party being able to do anything.

I know that the UK "democratic" institutions leave a lot to be desired but they do at least provide for a modicum of party discipline.

Occasionally a party switcher will resign and deliberately trigger a special election where they are almost invariably re-elected.

One benefit of the lesser party discipline in the US is that it allows the individual Senator or Representative to vote their conscience and/or the wishes of their constituents, rather than what the party leadership and special interests want.

If we had party discipline, it would be State versus State. The rich States (per person) would all be Dem and the poor States would all be Republican. We had that once, it caused a Civil War.

Maybe I've been away from the UK for too long, but can't a UK pol who is kicked out of his party still hang on to his seat if he wants to? Or have I been in Germany too long?

Mmm, I think it Europe exactly the opposite happens.

Huh? It's idiotic that representatives get to vote their conscience from one issue to another rather than tow the party line always, always, always? That's not idiotic, it's fucking fantastic.

And who says their own party can't do anything about it?

You have an enormous amount to learn about the U.S. government. I'd highly suggest you get on the ball before you form any more strong opinions.

I haven't examined the entire list that Kat posted, though it does seem rather long. The ActBlue campaign is not going after every congressperson who votes occasionally with the Republicans. They are targeting the ones who consistently vote with the other side, and who are also vulnerable in their districts. Part of the assumption of the campaign is that voters in these districts may not be paying enough attention to how their representative is actually voting. Raising awareness brings the possibility that a rebel democrat might be replaced by a more party-friendly democrat. Or that said representative's constituents might amp up the pressure for him/her to vote according to the assumptions the voters have about how a democrat should be voting on the whole.

I don't think anyone is saying that bipartisanship should never exist. Far too much of it has been apparent in recent years, though, at the same time that Americans' basic rights have been stripped and egregious things have been carried out in our names on the international stage. It's time we amped up the pressure on Democrats to step up and oppose these actions. That's what we elected them to do.

I am certainly jazzed about Franken's nomination to represent the Democrats against Norm Coleman in November. (You may have heard that Jesse The Body Ventura is also making noise about entering that race, which will further complicate matters.) There's no rule against donating to more than one cause. Plus, I haven't heard what Franken has to say about the new FISA law and how he would vote if he were currently in office. If he supports the bill, that's another square left blank on my November ballot.

they can indeed hang on to their seats. But unless they join another party they are unwhipped. As such they can excersise a strong influence on the ruling party if it has a narrow margin and slim majority or stagnate in obscurity (a la Clare Short) if there is a big majority.

Franken doesn't seem like the type to support the FISA compromise, especially since he doesn't have to vote on it.

Frankly, I think donating money to any politician or political party is a waste of money, but if I were a Democrat, I would be trying to get people to follow the strategy I alluded to above.

cinzia, I think you might want to ask why those House Democrats who did vote for the FISA compromise did so, and why Obama is supporting it. Not everyone shares your opinion, and TBH, as a person who cares very much about civil liberties and who has looked at both sides' positions, I think the compromise was a fair one. I don't want ambiguity of this sort happening again, and I want a solid legal framework for the wiretapping when it is necessary, and one that is constitutional.

As for the Minnesota Senate race, Rasmussen Reports has Coleman leading in both a three-way and a two-way race. I do think Coleman would prefer not to see Ventura again, although it's possible Ventura might actually damage Franken more if the former governor is deemed to have a credible chance of winning.

In the UK, the leaderships of the political parties can decide what issues are a matter of conscience and which are whipped (ie members are requested (one line) required (two line ) or compelled(three line) to vote with their own party line.)

In practice quite a few matters are actually unwhipped. But when it comes to anything that has been promised in a party manifesto, that is something the party has promised to do if elected, then if that party is elected it is important to fulfill the promise to the electorate and require a three line whip to ensure that promise to the electorate is kept.

You've said nothing that supports the assertion made in your previous post.

OK, I don't understand it either. I fully support a pol voting according to his conscience, which may occasionally mean voting against the party line. But if somebody regularly votes against the party line, say > 30% - 40% + of the time, then to my mind he no longer belongs in that party. And precisely because a large number of voters automatically vote for their party come what may, then it's important that the candidates reflect the party line, at least in general.

hmm, I guess I know more than you imagine. I am just poinitng up something that, based on the conversation above, seems a democratic failing in the US constitution. If people elect a representative on a Democratic ticket then surely they should expect them to fulfill electoral promises and not do the opposite?

FPTP and voting by one's conscience alone looks seductive but in reality is only viable at the very local council level. At supranational level in the US congress it becomes a mask for all sorts of unchecked shenanigans.

Slightly OT, I don't have time to read this whole thread, (I caught it a bit late), can somebody enlighten me as to what the FISA compromise is?

Representation in the US is purely on a geographic basis, it is designed to dilute ideological considerations. The bipartisan system in the US is quite different from multi-party Parliaments in Europe, the parties represent broad coalitions of disparate elements. The real ideological fights are within the party among these elements for control of party coffers and influence. This is also why you get the lobbyists, because you need to accumulate enough votes to pass a measure, and you can grease palms on either side of the aisle

BTC, not voting with your party is probably only going to hurt you if your voting record is out of touch with your district. Then you are much more vulnerable to a primary challenge. In some cases, this type of thing is tolerated because your party needs you to vote in support of your party when it comes to the composition of the Senate or for House Speaker.

badbob is a half-hard chode who pisses in the pool. probably works as a psyops agent for bill o'reilly from a trailer park somewhere in texas. too bad the Toytown software is not smart enough to tune him the fuck out.

the system is first-past-the post on a district basis. This also brings in Lani Guinier's argument about the disenfranchaisment of blacks in the US, since they are a minority in almost all district, they will not get congressional representation in proportion to their nationwide numbers, aside from the fact that DC has no congressional representation.

which assertion? British parties are "whipped" unless a matter is allowed a free vote by agreement of the party leaderships. If someone is a consistent rebel they will be interviewed by the party whips and in extremis expelled from the party. In the 1990s hen this happened with the Tory rebels, the very narrow majority Major had meant they could directly influence government policy on many issues. recent Labour rebels, such as Clare Short, have been in a pretty perilous position since nobody depends on their vote and they just drift off into utter obscurity.

Sure there are big issues which make a party what it is, but it is fairly rare that U.S. representatives don't vote along those lines. If they wish to however, they should be allowed to. Full stop. And why not? Plenty of voters even prefer it that way e.g. fiscal conservatives who are social liberals. They wouldn't have fair representation if it were any other way.

Allowing representatives to vote their conscience on any issue hardly idiotic as BTC stated.

6 of 223 Republican Representatives in the House voted against the Iraq War. Would you really not have allowed them that vote?

same problem in England though somewhat sorted out in Scotland and most other EU systems with some form of PR

Everyone is wondering why the Democrats are going for the FISA proposal (well, everyone who is paying attention, including Republicans.)

The best guess I've seen so far is that key Democrats knew about the illegal wiretapping from the beginning, and they don't want any civil lawsuits against the telecom companies bringing that fact (and possibly other inconvenient ones) to light. Hence, the (to me, mind-boggling) support for retroactive immunity against civil prosecution for the telecoms.

I am puzzled as to why you don't think the original FISA laws were good enough? There was already a solid legal and constitutional framework for wiretapping, which the Bush Administration nevertheless chose to ignore.

I thought the point of all the posts above was that there were a sizeable number of people elected on a Democratic ticket voting in favour of Republican bills if not all of the time then most of the time. It that was business the voters would be entitled to get their money back surely?

Yeah, but I'm a bit in two minds about proportional representation. It doesn't entirely help in forming a stable government - best example Italy. I can't quite decide whether or not Germany is a special case because of the spread of voting dates causing the country to be in a permanently instable state of preparing for the next election. Under other circumstances a "großer Koalition" would be an opportunity to push through unpopular, but necessary, legislation - not in Germany!

I think your understanding of the U.S. system has been clouded by your experience with the British system. I'm not claiming one is better than the other, I'm simply stating that there are very good reasons that U.S. representatives shouldn't be whipped into voting one way on certain issues. You stated it was idiotic, and you're not doing a good job of backing that up.

There are a significant number of African-American majority districts in the House, and about 40 House members are African-American, not counting the ones from DC and the Virgin Islands.

DC does have a non-voting representative- this is because DC is not a state.

Guinier is infamous for her love of quotas and successful African-American candidates at the state level show her ideas aren't needed. Our next President is probably going to be an African-American.

cinzia, I have already made the case for telecom immunity. The 1978 FISA law wasn't written with today's telecom technology in mind. The idea for the update is not to infringe on US citizens but to be able to wiretap communications originating and ending outside of the US.

if it delivers such a huge number of elected candidates (30%?) who stand on one platform but have decieved their electorate and vote the opposite and nobody can do a darn thing about it - then there seems to me to be something very wrong.

That's just it, BTC, sometimes candidates for the House and Senate run on their own platforms and indicate they disagree with party leaders/national figures on one or more issues (often indirectly). You get elected as an indivdual candidate more so than a member of party in a lot of instances, although certainly nowhere near all of them. Gerrymandering has something to do with this as well.

@Conquistador, maybe you've been misinformed:


From slate.com

cinzia, one problem may be that you're relying solely on Salon.com for your information. The original FISA legislation says that for warantless wiretapping there has to be "no substantial likelihood" that a US person's communication will come under surveillance (within the US). These are known as minimization requirements:


The Protect America Act of 2007 authorizes warantless wiretapping without FISA supervision for communications beginning or ending in a foreign country, but with the wiretapping directed at the person outside of the US. Also, the 2008 FISA amendments specifically require a warrant to wiretap an American who is outside of the US.

Point is, Salon is inaccurate in saying the 2008 updates will allow something that already became law in 2007, or that anything has changed with regards to US persons' rights- once again, US persons cannot be the surveillance target without a warrant, which was the idea behind the 1978 FISA legislation. You are, as a US person, still legally protected from being the target of a warantless wiretap.

the issue is proportional representation, not exclusion. One senator (1%) is significantly different from the population mix (10%), so there's a problem.


That's fine then, right? Classic conservative rationalization. What is it going to take for you to wake up?
No voting system is completely fair, but the US system is as crooked as a three-dolalr bill.


Prof. Guinier is an outstanding academic who was smeared when she was nominated for Assistent AG. Her studies about the voting system in the US are interesting if you have a background in economics or political science, or even if you just are interested in the US and its problems. But if you aspire to be an ignorant bubba, watching FOX news and sniggering about "evil leftists", then I guess this is not something for you to study up on.

I remember the anomally of DC being brought up in the debates about devolution in Scotland since it was the only other place in the world where government and the administration of the district was fulfilled by representatives voted in elsewhere while contsituents in the district were barred themselves from having any say at all. It was referred to then as a Democratic Deficit.

the problem should have been addressed 20 years ago, but it has been blocked because of the the balance of power being what it is, a slight majority of republican senators due to a lot of rural, under-populated, fly-over states with large masses ignorant, racist, white voters (lets call it what it is). Of course, some will argue it is not racism, but this is simply being facetious. If the result is racist, then rationalization is (usually ) an empty lie.
There are some who argue that US politics in the last 30 years has been driven by racism, all the blue-collar democrats voting with Nixon and Reagan on the basis of the "silent majority"/States rights arguments, the flight to the suburbs, gun rights, the home-schooling, privatized health care, the tough-on-crime stance, et cetera. All of it simply to withdraw social services to African Americans, drive a wedge in the working class and postpone the day of reckoning.

I guess your opinion is the only valid one, Villager, and anyone else's is deemed to be unoriginal, immoral and invalid. Of course your motives are pure and nonideological. How dare anyone have their own viewpoint!

Implicit in your demand for proportional representation is the assumption that one cannot be properly represented by someone of another race (so much for Barack Obama's candidacy under such thinking). Putting that aside, which white (mostly Democrats) are going to step aside so that the nation can ensure it has 13 African-American US Senators (with one or two being Republican)? What about Hispanics like us, Villager? We'll get 14 Senate seats(so I think 11 more ). But the racial issue would flare there as well, as you know. And so on.


This is where an understanding that the District of Columbia is not a state nor was it intended to be one comes into play. Why not make it a part of Maryland?


One problem that the left has in discussing issues is that they inevitably see things solely through the prism of race or some other distinction and lose their bearings in righteous outrage. If DC becomes a part of Maryland, a compromise I am fairly sure Republicans would agree to, then the matter would be resolved. However, Democrats simply want the two additional Senate seats that would come with statehood for DC.

It wasn't racism that caused the mismanagement of DC by Marion Barry, you know the time when DC had absolutely no idea how many people it employed and the highest or one of the highest murder rates in the country.

John McPain Scandals List
Vicki Iseman

* New York Times: McCain Denies Aides’ Statements About Lobbyist (February 22, 2008)
* CNN.com: McCain denies inappropriate relationship with lobbyist (February 21, 2008)
* Times Online: John McCain Forced to Deny Romantic Link with Lobbyist (February 20, 2008)
* USA Today Blog: McCain Campaign Calls Drudge Report About Lobbyist Story a... (December 20, 2007)
* Drudge Report: McCain Pleads with NY Times to Spike Story (December 20, 2007)

Lobbyist Favoritism

* CBS News: "McCain Boosted By Lobbyist Donors" (December 31, 2007) WARNING: Pop-ups
* Washington Post: "McCain: Allegations That He Did Favors for Lobbyist Are Untrue" (December 21, 2007)
* Politico: "McCain Responds to Drudge" (December 20, 2007)
* Drudge Report: McCain Pleads with NY Times to Spike Story (December 20, 2007)
* Huffington Post: Exclusive: More Lobbyists On McCain Staff Than Any Other 08 Candidate (2007)

Keating Five

* Mahalo's Guide to the Keating Five
* Wikipedia: Keating Five
* The Arizona Republic: "The Keating Five" (2007)
* Slate: "Is John McCain a Crook?" (2000)

Controversy Over Religion

* The Washington Times: "Candidates Invite Questions About Their Faith" (2007) WARNING: Pop-ups
* FOX News: "McCain Identifies Himself as a Baptist" (2007)
* Sacramento Bee: "McCain Called Out on Religion" (2007)

Family Troubles

* New York Daily News: "Campaign Trail Will be Nothin' for Cindy" (2007)
* Common Dreams: "McCain's Double Standard: Hawk In The Drug War, Yet Wife Got No Penalty" (2000)
* Salon: "How Cindy McCain was Outed for Drug Addiction" (1999)
* Phoenix New Times: "Opiate for the Mrs." (1994)