2008 US Presidential Poll - Page 19

[Dave Sinkula]

This is "the leader of the free world" we stand to elect; I find it appropriate to raise questions regarding the men and women who vie for that title -- especially one that could arguably be called the 'least experienced candidate for the post in history'. And after considering all bits of information germane to each of us as individuals, we vote. Reviewing the information available is simply that.

[GrimJack]

I have read the articles you point to - most of it is disingenuous to say the least. One was surprised that Obama is Liberal (omg, who could possibly imagine a Democrat that is Liberal!!). Is anyone surprised that Bush is a conservative? Is anyone surprised that McCain is conservative?

Did it surprise you when McCain crawled on his knees to the ?Christian? minister who said that 9/11 was god's punishment for our evil ways? Did it surprise you when McCain stood on the stage with a ?Christian? minister who demonizes Catholics and Islam and blames the Holocaust on the Jews.

If you think Americans should know who they are voting for, shouldn't you post some crap about McCain?

[Dave Sinkula]

Is anyone surprised that Bush is a conservative?

Many could argue that.

Is anyone surprised that McCain is conservative?

And many more could argue that.

[Dave Sinkula]

If you think Americans should know who they are voting for, shouldn't you post some crap about McCain?

Is May recent enough, or do I have to dig? 'Cuz, y'know I have pointed to GOP f-ups. Possible campaign irony. Even initial misgivings.

But let me just be plain:

Top 10 reasons conservatives dislike McCain

WASHINGTON — While Republican John McCain is urging his conservative critics to rally around his presidential campaign, there is a lot of water under that bridge.

Here are the top 10 reasons some conservatives dislike the Arizona senator:

1. Campaign finance reform. McCain tried to limit the role of money in politics with measures that, critics say, stomp on the constitutional right to free speech.

2. Immigration. McCain has been a vocal supporter of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, although he now says he understands the border between the U.S. and Mexico must be sealed first.

3. Tax cuts. McCain twice voted against President Bush's tax cuts, saying in 2001 they helped the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and in 2003 that there should be no tax relief until the cost of the Iraq war was known. But he now wants to extend the tax cuts.

4. Gay marriage. McCain refuses to support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

5. Stem cell research. McCain would relax restrictions on federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research, which critics consider tantamount to abortion.

6. Global warming. Among the loudest voices in Congress for aggressive action against global warming and a frequent critic of the Bush administration on the issue.

7. "Gang of 14" member. One of seven Republicans and seven Democrats who averted a Senate showdown over whether filibusters could be used against Bush judicial nominees.

8. Kerry veep. McCain was approached by the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, about being his running mate. McCain talked with Kerry but rejected the offer.

9. Works with Democrats. See all of the above.

10. Belligerence. McCain can be acerbic toward his critics, such as when he labeled televangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance." He reconciled with Falwell in 2006. Conservative James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, said in a statement on the morning of the Super Tuesday primaries that he would not vote for McCain, citing among other things his "legendary temper" and that he "often uses foul and obscene language."

Good 'nuff?

[jwenting]

in other words McCommie is a far left infiltrator, not a true representative of the American electorate at all.
He's no different from Osama bin Barack except in (literally) outward appearances.

[sneekula]

Top 10 reasons conservatives dislike McCain

WASHINGTON — While Republican John McCain is urging his conservative critics to rally around his presidential campaign, there is a lot of water under that bridge.

Here are the top 10 reasons some conservatives dislike the Arizona senator:

1. Campaign finance reform. McCain tried to limit the role of money in politics with measures that, critics say, stomp on the constitutional right to free speech.

2. Immigration. McCain has been a vocal supporter of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, although he now says he understands the border between the U.S. and Mexico must be sealed first.

3. Tax cuts. McCain twice voted against President Bush's tax cuts, saying in 2001 they helped the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and in 2003 that there should be no tax relief until the cost of the Iraq war was known. But he now wants to extend the tax cuts.

4. Gay marriage. McCain refuses to support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

5. Stem cell research. McCain would relax restrictions on federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research, which critics consider tantamount to abortion.

6. Global warming. Among the loudest voices in Congress for aggressive action against global warming and a frequent critic of the Bush administration on the issue.

7. "Gang of 14" member. One of seven Republicans and seven Democrats who averted a Senate showdown over whether filibusters could be used against Bush judicial nominees.

8. Kerry veep. McCain was approached by the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, about being his running mate. McCain talked with Kerry but rejected the offer.

9. Works with Democrats. See all of the above.

10. Belligerence. McCain can be acerbic toward his critics, such as when he labeled televangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance." He reconciled with Falwell in 2006. Conservative James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, said in a statement on the morning of the Super Tuesday primaries that he would not vote for McCain, citing among other things his "legendary temper" and that he "often uses foul and obscene language."

Good grief, if this is all true, I should really vote for this rather interesting guy!

[Dave Sinkula]

Hm. A late entry? Yes we can!

[GrimJack]

Erp! Oops, I stand corrected Dave - I sometimes get so riled at some of the stuff you post, I lose perspective. Thanks! I can't promise I won't go off again but... (Maybe I conflate you with jwenting and for that I should be flagellated - so to speak)

[Dave Sinkula]

I found an amusing line in the article Obamanomics:

So it seems that Obama’s plans to hike taxes, increase spending, return to protectionism and bring back questionable characters to the White House combines the worst policies of the last 80 years and the ethics of the Clinton administration. Not exactly new, but it will be a change.

But is Big Mac: The Taxpayer-Friendly Candidate?

McCain pledged to keep taxes low for families and employers, putting himself squarely in Ronald Reagan's camp and offering to extend the long prosperity wave started by the Gipper over twenty-five years ago.

I don't know if I buy it.

[Ancient Dragon]

If the American people want national free heal care, then there is no choice but to raise taxes. Someone has to pay, and it will be the taxpayers. So national health care will be free only to those people who don't pay taxes. Are the taxpayers ready to pay for that because it will cost billions every year.

Of course one solution to that is to stop paying Billions every day for that silly and costly war in Iraq. We finished what we went there for about 5 years ago -- there is no reason for us to stay there any longer.

[Dave Sinkula]

If the American people want national free heal care, then there is no choice but to raise taxes. Someone has to pay, and it will be the taxpayers.

Only if you're a zero-sum-gamer.

Of course one solution to that is to stop paying Billions every day for that silly and costly war in Iraq. We finished what we went there for about 5 years ago -- there is no reason for us to stay there any longer.

Some folks have other opinions on the matter: Iraq Outlook Improves But Sustained U.S. Military Presence Remains Essential.

And maybe some think entitlements are a national security issue.

Entitlement Reform as National Security Issue. The U.S. government is running a large bud­get deficit, and the principal reason is the growth in entitlement costs, not increased defense funding since 9/11. Since 1970, the historical ratio between defense spending and entitlement spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security has flipped. In 1970, military spending totaled 7.8 percent of GDP—almost twice the 4.1 percent of GDP spent on the big three entitlement programs. Today, defense spending has fallen to 3.9 percent of GDP while enti­tlement spending has more than doubled to 8.8 per­cent of GDP. By 2030, the big three entitlements will absorb roughly 84 percent of all federal revenues, crowding out defense and homeland security and threatening the historically low-tax, high-growth U.S. economy. Congress needs to find a solution to the entitlement spending problem quickly.

[Dave Sinkula]

Interesting perspectives: Why Iraqis Back McCain

[GrimJack]

Here is another interesting perspective: Dualing links (do you hear banjos or tubas in the background?. Maybe the Iraqis don't really want us there for 100 years.

[Dave Sinkula]

Banjos.

I know the usual storyline. I feel that stuff is widely distributed. I find lots of stuff from the other perspective as well -- even if it was, in this case, only interviews with 4 Iraqi governors.

I wish all sides were presented more routinely.

[GrimJack]

The first time I heard Dueling Tubas (Martin Mull - Fabulous Furniture;If you can find it, it is worth listening to - only 97 seconds long.), I nearly busted a gut; and, yes, I read your links and like to hear from someone other than the chorus. I am sure that the Iraqis are as far from unified on this (and other) question.

[Dave Sinkula]

Why I'm Voting Democrat
:icon_razz:

[jephthah]

HAY GUISE

whats going on here?

[Dave Sinkula]

Veepstakes

Win an Asus Eee PC mini notebook or an Amazon Kindle from Pajamas Media!

[Lardmeister]

Veepstakes

Very crotchety stuff.

[Dave Sinkula]

Tales from the inbox:

Robert Mundell isn't in the habit of making fruitless policy recommendations, though some take a long time ripening. Nearly four decades passed between his early work on optimal currency areas and the birth of the euro in 1999 – the same year he received the Nobel Prize for economics.

[...]

Democratic nominee Barack Obama regularly professes disdain for the Bush tax cuts, suggesting that those growth-spurring measures may be scrapped. "If that happens," Mr. Mundell predicts, "the U.S. will go into a big recession, a nosedive."

One of the original "supply-side" economists, he has long preached the link between tax rates and economic growth. "It's a lethal thing to suddenly raise taxes," he explains. "This would be devastating to the world economy, to the United States, and it would be, I think, political suicide" in a general election.

[...]

[GrimJack]

Tales from the inbox:

It always amazes me when this old canard is dragged out; the greatest period of US economic growth was the period between the '50s up through the early 70s when the US income tax rate maxed at about 90% on the highest income brackets.

[Dave Sinkula]

Although I can search the web, I prefer it when folks point to the source data and/or summaries.

[GrimJack]

Dang, I should've known you would ask; I will dig that up in a bit - I ran across the stats while researching a post last week and I can't remember what I was talking about - give me about 20 minutes.

Here is something to look at until I find the specific article I saw.

Still haven't found what I was looking for but here are some actual numbers to back up the claim

I am giving up for the night (morning) - if you want more, let me know and I will dig some more info up later.

Enjoy your weekend

[jephthah]

"will go into a big recession"

we're already in a recession.

regardless of what Junior wants you to think.

.

[Ancient Dragon]

I just don't understand why many white people are so afraid of Obama -- So what that he is black (or half black) ? Does skin color make white men superior Presidents than blacks, or red, or yellow, or brown. Biggots would have the same problem if Obama were of Chinese descent, or Japanese, Korean, French, or you-name-it. Many white people are simply white-supremist-biggots (to put it nicely). They are scared to death, and will crap in their pants, when Obama, a black man, is elected to the most powerful and most elete position in the world. Obama could be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ and they would still do anything to keep him from getting elected. And the smear campaigns, such as Obama is a Marxist, Communist, Muslem, or terrorist presented in this thread as well as on the internet just proves my previous statements here.

There are many reasons that anyone can legatimately NOT vote for Obama this November. But race is not among them.

[Dave Sinkula]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcfeToczFnM&fmt=18

[GrimJack]

Dave, good video - I liked Dennis back when he was funny and 'intellectual', haven't had much use for him when he started getting all political (read this as expressing points of view diametrically opposed to mine). If he at least kept his humor and/or smarts when he sold out to the right, I could at least listen to him. He and Bill O. make a good couple but I can't stand to listen to either for any length of time. I did not make it past Dennis saying "Barak, you don't scare me"

[Dave Sinkula]

Character Judgment

[GrimJack]

And a Judgment of character:Brooks is very interested in anthropology, psychology and sociology, and likes to apply the language and tools of these fields to his analysis of politics and pop culture. He wishes to be taken very seriously by scholars in these fields, and would be, if only he hadn’t been born extremely lazy.

Because of this condition, Brooks is unable to do any of the actual analysis and research that would ordinarily give a person credibility in these fields. Many have criticized the insular nature of academia. They claim that those who, like Brooks, were born lazy, or, to use the more politically correct term, “differently incentivized,” are discriminated against.

Brooks has been able to surmount these obstacles with surprising success. At an early age, he resolved that he would overcome his disability through a combination of dishonesty and smiling. This potent combination worked to a stunning degree, and Brooks has become one of the leaders in public influence, as well as serving as a role model to those all over the world who happened to have been born lazy and dishonest and have nice smiles. It is very important to Brooks that he be seen as different from those widely seen to be Republican party hacks who support the Bush administration in almost anything they do, like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.

And it is true that he is, in fact, very different than Limbaugh. He is, for example, not as fat, smiles more, talks in a soothing voice, and isn’t known to be addicted to Oxycontin. And his hackery is better written. For instance:

“There's something about our venture into Iraq that is inspiringly, painfully, embarrassingly and quintessentially American.

No other nation would have been hopeful enough to try to evangelize for democracy across the Middle East. No other nation would have been naive enough to do it this badly. No other nation would be adaptable enough to recover from its own innocence and muddle its way to success, as I suspect we are about to do.”

This was written in May of 2004.

In 2007, he became engaged in a feud with fellow New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. In his book The Conscience of a Liberal, Krugman recounts the story of how Ronald Reagan gave a 1980 campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in the 1960’s. In his speech, Reagan mentioned his support of states’ rights, which was a clear signal of his solidarity with white southern racists.

On November 9 2007, Brooks responded with a column defending Reagan against this “slur,” writing:

“You can look back on this history in many ways. It’s callous, at least, to use the phrase ‘states’ rights’ in any context in Philadelphia. Reagan could have done something wonderful if he’d mentioned civil rights at the fair. He didn’t. And it’s obviously true that race played a role in the G.O.P.’s ascent.”

This is an example of powerful Brooksonian d*ck logic: if only Reagan had said something not racist, instead of racist, he would not be thought of as racist. Likewise, if only Paris Hilton would wear underwear, people would stop the “slur” that Paris Hilton doesn’t wear underwear.
I have trouble with David Brooks but this might be obviated by the above quotes.

[Dave Sinkula]

Red State, Blue State- Indivdualism v. Collectivism