...until election day.
It looks like Obama is leading by roughly 5% nationwide, and only needs to win one of a handful of swing states (Ohio? Florida? Virginia?) to seal the deal. On the other hand, McCain needs to sweep almost all of the swing states to have a chance at winning.
At this point, barring some unforeseen circumstances or happenings, it looks like Barack Obama will be the next President. That, in itself, does not scare me too much.
Two thoughts on this: look, McCain is doing the best he can with the hand he has been dealt. I truly believe that Palin is a net plus to this ticket. Think about it this way: in January, if you would have been told where the stock market is, received the details on the financial crisis, and the price of gas, you would have thought that the Democrat would be up 15%. He is only up 5%, maybe a bit more. That says a lot for McCain, and I think Palin has energized the party and heartland women.
My second thought is that I shudder to think what the government will do over the next 2 years. Obama himself doesn't seem too bad, but give him a possible 60-seat majority in the Senate and maybe 250 seats in the house - and look out. The floor is falling out from the Republicans in Congress. Mitch McConnell- the Senate Minority leader - is in a tight race in Kentucky. Both of the Cincinnati congressmen - Steve Chabot and Don's girlfriend, Jean Schmidt - are in dead heats. Stuart Smalley may win in Minnesota (which terrifies me).
Part of me thinks this is OK for the Republicans, as they need to learn (and re-learn!) lessons. This party is not about Ted Stevens, the corrupt Senator from Alaska, but about budget hawk Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. It is not about family-values Larry Craig of Idaho but about Chuck Grassley of Iowa. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. John Thune of South Dakota. It is not Trent Lott but Norm Coleman. Maybe it's good to clean house and get the old, power-corrupted Senators out of the way.
Then I realize that would leave us with about 35 senators.
Barack Obama has never said no to Democratic leaders before in his life. Having Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have a rubber stamp presidency is frightening. I do believe that Obama-led government will significantly raise taxes. It may not be started from Obama, but it will pass under his watch. What will our defense look like? What government programs - all with "good intentions" - will make a mess of our lives?
And what will Obama say no to?
Obama promises a new kind of politics in Washington. The idealist in me wants to take him at his word and hope we can work together in a bipartisan fashion over the next few years.
But the realist in me reads the news of a Maryland McCain supporter's house being vandalized and painted with KKK insignia. I see Obama supporters wearing T-shirts that say "Sarah Palin is a c**t". I see Pelosi wanting to bring the "fairness" doctrine back to effectively shut down any media that may be conservative.
I hope Obama has the backbone to stand up to the dnagerous elements of his party. I see some of Perot's outsiderness in Obama. I hope it's real and not just election rhetoric to get elected.
18 comments:
To be fair to those Obama supporters, Sarah Palin IS a c**t. :)
And the fact that she may be a net plus to the McCain campaign honestly scares the crap out of me. How can there be that many people in this country that would support a vice-presidential candidate who doesn't know what the vice president does? You'd think that would be sufficient to stop anyone from voting for her, but then there's also the fact that she hasn't held a single press conference, can't answer debate questions without completely changing the topic and, apparently, can't answer questions at all unless she has a pre-scripted answer and knows the questions ahead of time. The fact that she could possibly swing voters to her ticket is truly terrifying.
I was fully prepared to write-in a vote for Ron Paul this year. Partially because he seems to be the person in Washington with the most foresight and common sense these days, but also because I'm getting really sick of the two party system where people think they just have to vote for the lesser of the two evils chosen for them by the major parties. When will people wake up and realize that they can vote for anyone they want? Until that happens, we will continue to be saddled with only two real choices for the Presidency because most of the country doesn't seem to think they can vote for anyone not sanctioned by the Dems or the Repubs.
Unfortunately, I live in MD which means our electoral votes are going to Obama which makes my vote pretty much useless.
I agree with the Dudeman, except for his claim that you can vote for anyone you want. Unfortunately, absent a constitutional amendment, you will not be able to vote for me.
Not technically true, Neil. I can vote for you if I want. You just aren't allowed to actually be elected.
So in the intended meaning of my comment you are correct, but I so love to point out when you are incorrect that I had to jump on that technicality.
Dudeman equals hijacker of blogs.
First dudeman, what is the difference between Dan Qualye and Sarah Palin. In my eyes nothing. The impact of Sarah Palin is overblown as a VP. It was a total political move that has worked.
And where were you in the primaries Dude? I was there for Ron Paul against McCain. I heart Ron.
But its the nature of politicans to over-react to these moves. It happens on both sides. The Dems have blown up the Sarah pick as being terrible and have done a tremendous job in making it sound like Sarah Palin will be our president. The Republicans do the same thing by blowing up certain issues with Obama.
Eric, I am with you on everything that you said. I'm OK with Obama, but I simply can't stand Reid and Pelosi.
But in my opinion, with the way things are heading, I don't think it even matters who is in the office for the next four years as this will be a one term president. Each candidate will have to go against most of the changes they wanted to make due to the economy. Each candidate will have to raise taxes across the board and make massive spending cuts due to the war and the bailout. Its going to be a bumpy ride.
I don't know enough about Quayle to make a valid comparison and I don't think anyone knows enough about Palin to make that comparison either. And also, I was not a registered voter when Quayle was elected as VP so I can't really complain about who made it into office then.
Where was I in the primaries? Well, I'm a registered Dem in MD which means that I can only vote in the Democratic primary here. So I was there voting for Obama.
I agree that it is the nature of politicians to over-react, but I don't really agree that it's completely overreaction in this case. She is a blithering idiot who has shown (and stated) time and again that she doesn't understand the role of the VP; she's not very familiar with the current situation in Iraq, let alone Afghanistan; and that she is not able to make a single statement about her position on any issue without pre-written talking points.
And the fact is that she would be serving as VP under a man who is very old and has considerable health issues. How considerable? We don't really know, because last time I checked he hadn't released his full medical records. Unless there's some data in those records to indicate that he has some serious health issues, why not release them? If there's no damning information in there it can only help him. That omission leads me to believe that there IS damning information in those health records and he doesn't want us to know about it. Given all that, it seems reasonable to assume that Palin assuming the presidency during a McCain administration is a realistic possibility.
I agree that the next four years is going to be a bumpy ride regardless of who gets elected, but I'm not sure that they're definitely going to be a one-term president. I think all they need to do to get re-elected is to start things moving in the right direction. I would hope that no one expects the wars and the economy to be fixed overnight, but if the new administration can show some tangible results of movement towards correcting those and other issues I think they might have a decent shot at a second term.
I know you never get a second chance to make a first impression...
..but those who are bashing Palin should read this: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/22/politics/fromtheroad/entry4539166.shtml
I'm not making the arguement for or agaisnt Palin, but I think it is just so secondary with everything else going on that I find it somewhat annoying. She should not be the focus just like the Ayers-Obama relationship should not be the focus. Maybe in years past this would do, but jesus christ, our economy is in the shitter, we are in two wars and the worst is yet to come. Let's just pay attention to the presidential candidates and what THEY have to say. And what they are saying sucks right now.
What's sad is that I caught Bill Clinton on David Letterman last night and I was amazed. The way he was explaining everything and saying that everyone is to blame and it wasn't just caused by one party and how he explained what might of caused it and what might be a couple of solutions and what might need to change, it was just refreshing!!! And I was just thinking, why can't our candidates communicate like this? Why don't our candidates have ideas like this.
And I'm not even a huge Clinton fan.
Dudeman:
I don't want to call you lazy, but just type in "McCain release medical records" into Yahoo and you will see:
http://www.koaa.com/decision_2008_news_stories/x1331638021
He released his records IN MAY.
Eric:
If those medical records were released, please tell me where I can find them so I can look over them myself and determine if I believe he will be alive and well for the next four years. What's that you say? I can't get them anywhere? They were only made available for three hours to a select group of media (NOT DOCTORS) in a secured room with no cell phone or internet access allowed and no one allowed to leave and return?
Now that doesn't seem like they were released at all. Rather like a PR stunt to allow the campaign to claim that they were released without actually having to provide the records to anyone who is actually qualified (i.e. physicians) to make any judgments based on the data in the records.
OK, Dudeman, I see your point. I'm sure we can find Obama's and Biden's records fully released, and we should urge McCain to do so too.
What's that?
"By comparison, Obama, who continues struggling to quit smoking and has a family history of cancer, has released only a one-page letter from his doctor proclaiming him in "excellent health," as well as "lean and muscular with no excess body fat."
Oh, I see.
Eric, I agree with you on pretty much everything, except for Palin. I think overall she's hurt the ticket. The major issue of the day is the economy, which McCain has admitted isn't his strong suit. She adds nothing in this arena. If he had chosen Romney, he'd probably be much better off with independents. Now, maybe Romney wouldn't have energized the base, but the R base is shrinking. Palin’s favorability numbers have tanked since she was introduced because people can see that she’s a complete dumb-dumb. Imagine if he had picked someone more qualified-the "country first" argument might have taken off. He could have pounded Obama's lack of experience and it could have put enough doubt into people's minds to vote McCain. I was even alright with McCain until he picked her.
And yes, taxes will need to be raised. Spending cutbacks alone won't cover the debt. Personally, I've never really understood this single-minded R obsession with low taxes. Obviously nobody wants to pay 75% taxes. But, during Clinton, taxes were slightly higher and we all did pretty darn good, both individually and as a whole. Shouldn't that in itself be an argument for giving a little more? Every election, R's promise to cut taxes. We'll, we’ve had George “lower taxes” Bush for 8 years and a R congress for 6 of those years--I can't imagine how taxes could possible be any lower!! And, look where it’s gotten us.
Politicians need to do a better job of explaining the big picture to the middle class. Yes, your taxes might go up $400 a year now, but the money will come back to you via government spending projects on things like defense, infrastructure, and green energy technology. Jobs will be created in these sectors. Goods will be cheaper. You’ll pay less locally on gas, property, liquor, and cigarette taxes. College will be more affordable. It can be proven that it will come back to you 2-fold (at least) in savings on other items.
The main problem is a lack of trust that the money will be spent wisely. Congress is responsible for that, but they have a very different agenda than the president. They get reelected based on the money that they bring back to the state so what’s their motivation to avoid pork? The process needs to change so that people can regain faith in the system. I propose the following: (1) a 2-year moratorium on ALL pork projects (if a project is so important to a local economy that we need to spend money on it now, put it up for an individual vote), (2) nothing can be added to a bill within 72 hours of a vote (so there is ample time for review), (3) any additions need 3 additional co-sponsors from different states. Make it difficult and transparent. A more radical idea would be 2-term limits on congressmen. I’m all for it. Will Reid and Pelosi propose any of these? No, because they’re spineless and a big part of the problem. Maybe Obama could convince them otherwise?
Yes Eric, you're right. Neither Obama nor Biden have released their medical records either. But to my knowledge, neither Obama nor Biden are 72 years old or had recurring instances of melanoma.
However, the bigger difference is that if Obama dies, Biden gets to run the country. If McCain dies, Palin gets to run the country. I'm pretty confident that Biden can do at least a passable job of running this nation if it comes to that. I am not at all confident that Palin would even be able to figure out which one is the Oval Office without someone else pointing it out to her.
Ha Ha, Sarah's dumb. I get it.
I mean, she doesn't even know that JOBS is a four letter word. She said it was a three letter word.
Or that she didn't know that Hoover was the president during the 1929 Stock market crash. Because she said it was FDR.
Or that she didn't know that TV wasn't invented during the great depression. Because she did say that.
I can understand how you would call her a "dumb dumb" based on those comments on the trail.
Oh wait, that wasn't Sarah, that was Biden.
Oh, but it's Joe - ha ha! Good old Joe! That's our boy! - so it's excusable.
Joe Biden, voting against the Iraq war of 1991.
Joe Biden, voting for the current Iraq war.
The double standard some people have for their candidates amazes me.
Look, if you don't like McCain or Palin, fine. Say so. Say you oppose their policies.
But don't come in with arguments (dumb! he doesn't release medical records!) that can easily be used to disqualify the candidate you support.
Please, support your candidate with "I support X issue, candidate O is for that, cadndiate M is against it".
That's all.
Eric-your ability to entertain has no limits. I love how you take one word out of my entire post--the one clearly meant as a joke--and go off on a completely useless rant about how it's awful to call her dumb because Joe Biden says dumb things too. What's classic, though, is your attempt to guide everyone back to talking in the format of "I support X because of Y" after ridiculing Biden on what appear to me to be non-issue related statements. Nice try. Any interest in discussing the other 1000 words in the post?
Giving money to the government will come back to me two fold in benefits? Has that ever happened? Putting anything in the hands of government beauracrats is the WRONG investment. Please don't tell me that "tax cutting Bush" is the problem here. Poor regulation of the swap market, and the "housing bubble" created this mess, not tax cuts. Now it is just a panic.
Let's be real. It's a 2 party system....like it or not. Choose the lesser of 2 eveils, or you are wasting your vote to try & make some kind of "statement" that no one will ever hear or care about.
With our economy in the dumps, the last thing we need is more goverment. I'm not crazy about McCain, but "wealth redistribution," and socialized medicine, and bigger government are not the answer.
I keep going back to Europe, but why don't people learn. You've got a 100 year study of what happens when you make the people dependent on goverment. You've got an aging population, constant protests about not having enough benefits, poor defense, a lackluster econony, and eceonomic model for the country that can't work. We sit here and look at that and think "Let's go in that direction." Why?!!!! It's maddening, and it's not what made this country what it is. Vote Republican. Out.
Laura: First, I'm glad I have the ability to entertain. It's one of the goals we have for the blog - and it looks like we succeeded!
And we've been going at each other here for a while, and since I am pretty transparent - you probably know what buttons to push to get a response. Well, you pushed one last night!
Anyway, to respond to your other 999 words:
"If he had chosen Romney, he'd probably be much better off with independents."
Really? How come McCain won most of the independent vote in the primaries? I personally do not believe this line.
"Imagine if he had picked someone more qualified-the "country first" argument might have taken off."
What are you saying, Laura? The "Country first" argument has legitimate legs? That McCain is more of a patriot than Obama?
Do you believe that? Evidently, you do.
" I was even alright with McCain until he picked her."
I'm sorry, Laura, this stretches my credulity. After your bashing of Bush & Republicans over the past X years, you expect me to believe that you would have entertained votign for McCain? Really?
Have you ever voted for a Republican for president? If not, why would you start this year (of all years)?
" Personally, I've never really understood this single-minded R obsession with low taxes. Obviously nobody wants to pay 75% taxes."
No, this is not obvious. You and I have lived during a period in American history where the top tax rate was 70%. 70%! And who voted for that top tax rate?
Biden. He was a Senator then.
So when Biden says "I don't mind paying more taxes", and Obama says "let's spread the wealth", well .... they hve a proven record of these top rates being enacted.
70% top tax rate. And this is YOUR money. So this is not so farfecthed. It is not obvious that no one wants tax rates this year. A candidate for VP actaully voted for tax rates this high when he was a senator.
"But, during Clinton, taxes were slightly higher and we all did pretty darn good, both individually and as a whole. Shouldn't that in itself be an argument for giving a little more? "
Um, you're forgetting one teensy weensy thing. The Republican congress led by Gingrich. The combination of the two - Clinton's deft political touch and the priniciples of the Republican Revolution - helped to balance the budget in the mid 1990s.
That's why a lot of conservatives are upset over the Bush years. Taxes were cut, yes - but spending was increased dramatically. Those principles opposed Newt's principles in the 90's.
That's the basis for my comment about the party. It's Tom Coburn that represents the R's from the 1990s, not Ted Stevens or Mitch McConnell.
"Politicians need to do a better job of explaining the big picture to the middle class... and so on"
Wow, Laura, you are living in a pipe dream. Pay more federal taxes and you will pay less on gasoline taxes? Why? What local politican will say "gee, the federal government will raise taxes, so I should cut mine?" Please. That will never happen.
And I defer to Micah on the argument against higher taxes. I'm so riled up now that his explanation will suffice.
"The main problem is a lack of trust that the money will be spent wisely."
Hey - we agree!
"1) a 2-year moratorium on ALL pork projects (if a project is so important to a local economy that we need to spend money on it now, put it up for an individual vote), "
Um, Laura...who is against pork and earmarks in this election? Who has LIVED THIS suggestion through his own actions?
McCain.
Not Obama. Not Biden. Those two won't even publish their earmark requests.
So, one of the reasons I am voting for McCain is that he has a PROVEN record of voters being abel to trust him with our (note: OUR) money.
Not sure if anyone's even reading this post anymore, but to respond to a few points...
Of course "country first" could have had legs. On paper, you have a military hero with years of experience in the Senate vs. a virtual nobody who just came on the scene. It took a lot of screwing up on McCain's part to lose that contest. I really did like him at one point, but his caving on the torture bill (although he's often mistakenly credited with standing up to Bush) was the first time I viewed him as a typical politician. Then, while campaigning, he proceeded to flip-flop on things that he had once spoken out strongly against (that I strongly agreed with him on)-speaking at Bob Jones Univ, befriending Jerry Falwell after declaring him an agent of intolerance, opposing Roe v. Wade after being OK with it. In my mind, he was no longer a maverick; he was a panderer just like every other politician out there.
He's voted for pork-laden bills and introduced pork just like the rest of them. If he had taken a strong stand against them over the last 8 years I might believe him more, but the true test of one's maverick-hood is how you act when you have all the power. The Bush admin is arguably one of the most corrupt administrations ever. What did Mr. Reform and Oversight do over the last 8 years to call Bush out on wiretapping, Iraq war lies and lack of planning, Halliburton, justice dept firings, Katrina, 9/11, and on and on? What did any republican do? Nothing. How much did these errors (or willful deceptions) cost the taxpayer? Where was McCain or the other fiscal conservatives when all these no-bid contracts were being handed out? His promises just don't ring true-while he continues to say that he's "stood up to his party" and "isn't everyone's favorite", he can't really point to anything specific over the last 8 years to prove his point.
No, Obama isn't my favorite either, but I do not nor have I ever agreed with the war in Iraq. This is the main voting issue for me. I guess I'm just one of those "defeatists" who doesn’t think it's a war we're going to win and I'd like to stop spending money and resources on policing a civil war between 2 groups of people that have hated each other for thousands of years. Green energy is also important to me. While McCain says he is for new technology, he's voted against it repeatedly in the past. I have to wonder if it will be a TOP priority for him. I know it will be for Obama.
But, I still could have voted for McCain--until, of course, he picked Palin. I'm sorry if I somehow offended you Eric with my dumb-dumb statement. What I should have said is that to me, she's an empty vessel who is being told what she thinks and believes--just like they did with GWB. She was picked because she met a certain ideological criteria to satisfy the base and they are coaching her on the rest. You can tell when she gets off her new-found talking points and talks about things that she's passionate about--Roe v. Wade and oil…and that’s about it. This is not a thick enough resume for a president. There is so much else to understand-and I mean fully understand. For all his stupid gaffes, it's clear that Biden knows a heck of a lot. While Biden's gaffes are typically due to foot-in-mouth syndrome or unnecessary extrapolation, Palin's are due to lack of knowledge--can't name supreme court cases, which magazines she reads, what the vice president does. Both are regrettable, but I'll take over-informed over under-informed any day of the week.
In terms of the tax argument, I'm obviously not going to convince Eric or 4micah on this issue. I view excessive deficit spending and trickle down tax cuts as failed strategies for building the wealth of the middle class. And low taxes don’t occur in a vacuum. When the gov’t loses funding and cuts services that people use, you end up paying out of pocket for things that were once provided for free. Look, Bush was one of those single-minded low tax republicans who continued with multiple tax refunds after it became particularly irresponsible to do so in light of the Iraq war. There was no trickle down to the middle class AND now the gov’t is beyond bankrupt. Absent the housing crisis, was this responsible financial policy? Does it make sense to continue borrowing from China to fund the wars in Iraq in Afghanistan? And if you believe in a balanced budget, how do you propose getting out of debt without raising taxes?
To answer your question, Eric, I've never voted R for president, but I vote R often in local and state elections. But, believe it or not, I actually considered voting for Bush in 2000. I liked his views against nation building and I actually believed him when he said he was going to surround himself with the best and the brightest. But, I thought his tax plan favored the rich and I felt that Gore's "lockbox" proposal was a better use of our surplus. Who knows how that would have turned out, but I guarantee you we could use that money right about now.
The Republicans are fiscally responsible? Explain the following graph:
National Debt as a percentage of GDP"
Now, of course, I don't know who controlled congress since the 80's. And, having barely passed the only economy class I ever took, I don't know if this graph is significant of anything. Oh and I barely passed, because I never went to class.
Had no idea about the rate. Found an interesting chart:
Tax Rates
Basically, for 50 years, the top rate was 70+ (1936-1980) until the Reagan administration brought it down to 50%. In 1987, that administration took it down even further to 38.5% (probably to help retain the Republicans in office) since that was the year before an election. And it was Bush senior who brought it down to the lowest level since right before the great depression hit. But, he realized that 28% just didn't cut it so he raised taxes. "No new taxes" Bush then lost the election to Clinton.
Just my simple analysis of the numbers I see. So, what's the answer? You actually think the Dems want the 70% tax rate back? No way. That would make absolutely no sense and would cripple the economy.
What I think Obama wants is to reinstate the Clinton numbers (39.6%). Like laurad said, things were pretty good then. Things were also pretty good when Reagan was in with the 50% tax rate.
This deficit spending needs to end. Taxes will need to be raised a little bit but not for people making under 250K a year. Ineffective programs will need to be cut while newer programs like health care reform will be instituted. But, we need fiscal responsibility. That's what I hear Obama saying. And for people to defend "Joe the Plumber" take on the issues, he don't know shit.
Obama is not a socialist. We're not going to turn into Europe if the Democrats take over.
Post a Comment