Site News and Content Combined
Categories: Politics, 69 wordsSend feedback • Permalink
But first a button:
Kind of a crappy job of putting it together but makes a point none-the-less:
Also from Politico.com. Probably the best of these three:
Sorry, bout the lack of embeds. I need to install the plugins.
Categories: Commentary, Politics, 30 wordsSend feedback • Permalink
Below is some of the stuff I’ve written on various forums I frequent. I’ll continue to add as I continue to post in those forums so more to come.
Categories: Commentary, Politics, 854 wordsSend feedback • Permalink
On whomever the next president will be:
Whomever gets elected they’re in for a rough ride. Often, the executive office gets too much credit for influencing the economy. Regan (the republican messiah) had a Democratic Congress and Clinton a Republican. W does get thrown under the bus though simply due to going to war and not doing anything to subsidize its funding. Economists say things are most stable when opposing powers are in place as things can’t be taken too far in one direction. Makes sense when considering our recent history. So the next pres is going to inherit an ugly mess and if it’s not cleaned up will take the blame. What if both parties are only marginally trying to win cause they don’t really want it?
Meanwhile the congressional race is flying under the radar which is odd cause that’s going to have more potential influence over the economy, taxes, etc.
On suggestions that high corporate tax rate causes shipped off jobs:
One’s got little to do with the other. The largest reason American labor jobs are being shipped off is due to things such as minimum wage and benefits. Pay someone here $7 an hour + health care + sick/vacation leave to put spindles in boxes or pay someone in Asia/South America $7 a week + no benefits to put spindles in boxes.
That is unfixable. The only way to address it is to emphasize and bolster education and skilled job training. We cannot be, by virtue of our labor laws, an industrial production nation.
On the recent GOP line that it’s better to have a foreign policy expert on top of the ticket rather than as the VP:
t’s pretty easy to turn this entire post on its head. Cheney was the one with the foreign policy experience. Everyone suspected in 2000 and knew in 2004 that it was everyone but W in control.
To suggest that women will vote for McCain simply because there’s a vagina on his ticket is a bit presumptive and insulting don’t you think? Who’s going to say, "while, as a former Hillary supporter, I fundamentally disagree with Palin’s politics but because I can identify with her hockey mom status as a soccer mom, myself, I’m going to toss my ideals and vote for the repubican ticket,"?
Meanwhile, hasn’t McCain shot himself in the foot? He’s been extolling the value of experience and then he goes and picks someone with none. Dems can pick on her lack of experience because it makes McCain out to be a hypocrite.
Tactically I think her pick is a terrible move cause the VP pick is now going to have to campaign against and contend with not only Biden but Hillary as well. Yes, it’s about getting McCain into office. The VP pick is a method to further that cause. Thus this discussion. Picking Palin seems gimmicky to me.
Responding to questions/concerns about Palin’s experience/background/qualifications with statements like "we’re voting for who’s on top of the ticket" is deflection and therefore, not a response. It also marginalizes her. You can’t applaud, praise and sell us on how/what she does to bolster the McCain ticket and then turn around and sweep her under the carpet as soon as she’s met with scrutiny.
Rebuttal to congress’ approval rating and marginalization of commentary suggesting that the GOP is really the party of "closet homosexuals" and hookers:
The answer to your Pelosi question is multi faceted. 1) congress’ approval ratings always suck and ultimately it doesn’t matter. 2) The house has tried to fulfill on their promises and has mostly succeeded. The republicans have impeded pretty much everything and since 60 votes are needed to end a filibuster it’s a stalemate. Then there’s that presidential veto thing.
The "blathering" about hookers and homosexuality should be taken seriously by you the citizen conservative. It’s the republican party who’s built platforms on marriage amendments, the "moral majority", the blurring of the separation of church and state, fiscal conservatism and borderline intolerance. So of course it’s a punch line to the libs when the hypocrisy is paraded in front of the world. The other punch line is that those who voted for them have been suckered.
One other thing related to commentary that Obama is a home run. He’s not, not by any stretch of the imagination. I think it’ll be a tight race and not because of any issue on either candidates platform. First the dems didn’t follow the Bill Clinton/ G W Bush formula of nominating a governor. Kerry showed us just how much a senate voting history can be twisted against a candidate. Fortunately McCain’s got a much longer one than Obama. But more importantly Clinton/Gore took AR/TN. The other issue is race(ism). I don’t think we, as a nation, are there yet. I think alot of people are going to show up to vote who otherwise wouldn’t based simply on the color of Obama’s skin. It’d be nice to think the youth vote will actually show up this time but they haven’t yet.
Categories: Politics, 343 wordsSend feedback • Permalink
Here’s the problems as I see them. Based on the formulas for the conventions and thus what you see being spewed forth during them there’s little talk of policy. Each party, for a week, gets to frame the subsequent discussion simply due to the fact that they’re the only one’s talking. What happens on stage isn’t discussion it’s rhetoric. It’s also generally lacking in policy substance because of the potential for causing divisiveness with the party they’re pandering to. So for 8 combined days we get to hear how great their candidate is from people who were pointing out how much he sucked only weeks/months ago. Since both sides have only talked about how great their guy is the opposition’s only available reaction to it is "he sucks".
Theoretically we’ll get more policy meat and potatoes once the debates roll around. It’ll still be a bunch of scripted posturing but at least it’ll be over policy rather than "you suck," "no, you suck."
What’s interesting about this election is how each party has moved a bit more to the left in reaction to the whole country’s irritation with what’s gone on over the past 8ish years. It’s fascinating really. As is this bizzarro dance the McCain campaign is doing for the GOP base/public/special interest/swing voters. It’s pretty amazing and I’m kind of surprised no one, that I’ve seen, has commented on it yet.
Anyway, they can’t campaign on policy anymore for a couple reasons. The general public is too lazy to fact check or even read a newspaper article. Eventually it’ll get thrown back in the party’s face if they don’t deliver on campaign policy promises. It prevents the candidate from being nimble and changing their tune in order to address changes in polling. It seems that people vote based on impressions. Clinton won on charisma and deep political understanding. W won his first term on morality and second on fear (and because Kerry was a puss who just took it in the face).
Categories: Commentary, Politics, 246 wordsSend feedback • Permalink
I found the following excerpt noteworthy:
I fight to restore the pride and principles of our party. We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us.
We lost – we lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption. We lost their trust when rather than reform government, both parties made it bigger.
We lost their trust when instead of freeing ourselves from a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, both parties – and Senator Obama – passed another corporate welfare bill for oil companies. We lost their trust when we valued our power over our principles.
We’re going to change that.
How bout that unenthusiastic blank-faced applause? While a great appeal to the swing voters, what an incredible indictment of his own party and the base represented in that room. I found it to be an amazing moment. I wonder how worried the GOP is that he’ll be the presidential equivalent of Sandra Day O’Connor. I mean, it’s feasible he’s just playing ball till he gets in and then he’ll roll them by being the maverick he supposedly is.
The corporate welfare bill comment’s pretty noteworthy on it’s own. Yeah he’s changed his tune on offshore drilling and I get that the oil lobby has been pushing hard for it (as just about every speech has highlighted that as the way to energy independence) but that must have made some execs shift in their seats.