Presidential Election

[JLak]

Perhaps this is a generational thing, with gen-xers and millennials more likely to accept his perhaps somewhat less traditional path? Perhaps it is a regional thing? I believe that Obama's politics are connected more to the New England region

No. Actually I am a millenial from Concord, MA and not nearly so naive. It's not a 'millennial' thing or a 'regional' thing. It's just a 'stupid' thing.

...and don't call me a GOP puppet either. Both parties pretty much just exist to take other people's money and make themselves feel important.

[Witchiepoo]

Obama...
Obama understands the need to direct funds in the direction of infrastructure renewal.

Holy crap, I keep on seeing this prototype bullshit statement:
"Obama really understands [my personal issue that I think is important] and will make it a priority."

It's like half the electorate thinks they've got this guy on speed dial in their t-mobile fave five.

People want and/or need to believe in something ... anything ... especially in times of stress. Fear of terrorism, fear of falling bridges, fear of economic meltdown, it's all used by politicians to their own advantage.

The economic crisis has started to remind me a LOT of that line from Blazing Saddles, where Mel Brooks (as the incompetent Governor) reads the negative news headlines, and tells his staff "holy underwear, we've got to save our phoney-baloney jobs, gentleman!"

[JimZ]

Scotths wrote

Perhaps it is a regional thing? I believe that Obama's politics are connected more to the New England region

I believe Obama's politics are more connected to Soviet, Russia or Tianamen Square.

[Marshall Kane]

Marshall Kane wrote:

I also fear the likelihood the worst is on its way, and our very survival may be at stake. If that is the case, I could see myself accepting a president Obama, in the hopes that 12 years of "moderate" Republican rule will be spared the blame for the coming disaster.

I have heard this argument before. The concept (I am saying this because I am trying to avoid "personalizing" this discussion) - the concept is incredibly shortsighted. I am more concerned about limiting the damage if it all "goes to hell in a handbasket" than I am with assigning blame. It doesn't do any good to have a great argument against the nihilist democrats when they have complete control of all branches of the government. Via tools such as the "Fairness Doctrine" many people will never get the straight story anyway. (BTW - there is talk of the Fairness Doctrine being applied to Internet sites as well this time around).

JimZ, don't get me wrong, limiting the damage is most certainly my top priority, especially since I'm convinced avoiding the damage is, tragically, not an option. I'm just playing with ideas here. I'm not one of these "I'm gonna vote libertarian until the second coming of Barry Goldwater," or "Ya know what?!? Now, Carter begot Reagan, ergo a Marxist this time around should equal President John Galt in 4 years!!!" This type of voting/calculating is foolish, since we can't predict the future.

But generational theory, if at all accurate, creates a fascinating scenario, since it provides us insight, AND this insight is not being taken into account by even the most savvy commentators.

So, from this framework, what can be salvaged? If we agree we are taking a hit no matter what, what do we want to salvage, short and long term. Personally, I believe the most important thing worth preserving is the foundation of our republic (as in 1814, when the British were about to burn Washington, President Madison ordered the founding documents to be removed from the city). I believe that we must emerge from this the stronger, and the seeds of liberty must be preserved. If the market is to crash anyway, and the war is likely to follow, we have to 1) win the war and 2) preserve our foundations. All questions follow from here.

So, if an unavoidable war is *definitely* coming, the question is not who is the best leader to have the foresight to choose our battles, it is who is likely to lead a war thrust upon him - thus, the mobilization of the younger generation argument is compelling.

If an unavoidable financial crisis is *definitely* coming, the long term health of our market based economy is a primary concern. Given the knee-jerk appeal of placing the blame on "unchecked capitalism" - regardless of the facts - it is important to consider who will take the blame. If we have an opportunity to actually catch the culprit at the scene of the crime (i.e. a Democrat believer in interventionist leftist economic policy) it that better than the alternative.

Its an interesting debate. And no worries - I don't take these things personally.

[John]

Here are Joe Biden's remarks at a fund-raiser last week:

> "And here's the point I want to make. Mark my words. Mark my
> words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack
> Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're
> about to elect a brilliant 47-year old senator president of the
> United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you
> don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an
> international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of
> this guy. And he's gonna have to make some really tough - I don't
> know what the decision's gonna be, but I promise you it will
> occur. As a student of history and having served with seven
> presidents, I guarantee you it's gonna happen. I can give you at
> least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. And
> he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is,
> he's gonna need you, not financially to help him, we're gonna need
> you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to
> stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's
> not gonna be apparent that we're right. Because all these
> decisions, all these decisions, once they're made if they work,
> then they weren't viewed as a crisis. If they don't work, it's
> viewed as you didn't make the right decision, a little bit like
> how we hesitated so long dealing with Bosnia and dealing with
> Kosovo, and consequently 200,000 people lost their lives that
> maybe didn't have to lose lives. It's how we made a mistake in
> Iraq. We made a mistake in Somalia. So there's gonna be some tough
> decisions. They may emanate from the Middle East. They may emanate
> from the sub-continent. They may emanate from Russia's
> newly-emboldened position because they're floating in a sea of
> oil."

And here's the SNL parody:

> Let me tell you something else, and listen to me well. As sure
> as I'm standing here today, during his first few weeks in office
> this brilliant young president is going to be tested, tested by
> an international crisis the likes of which this nation has never
> before seen, a deliberately manufactured crisis, designed to test
> his mettle.

> Now in this crisis, he will have to make decisions, decisions that
> at first, well, they may seem to the casual observer
> ill-considered.

> Our military may invade Pakistan, or surrender to the Chinese. We
> may sell Hawaii to Saudi Arabia, or just destroy it, so it can't
> fall into North Korean hands. But just reserve your judgment. We
> know what we're doing. ...

> Mark my words. If you take away nothing from what I say here
> today, or indeed from this entire campaign, remember this: If
> Barack Obama is elected, we will have a crisis.

> And when this crisis hits, and it will, in the second week of
> February, we may do some weird things. We may cede Florida back
> to Spain, or Alaska to the Russians. We may blow up ever nuclear
> power plant in the country. We may set fire to Washington DC. We
> may round up all French-Canadians. But don't lose faith -- it's
> all part of the plan. ...

> I'm going to say something else now, and I want you to mark well
> the words that I say. And the words that I say, and remember that
> I said them here today.

> In the second year of the presidency of Barack Obama, a young
> child shall come out of the north, from the city of steel, and
> this child shall rule for a time, but this child shall rule
> falsely, in the seat by the trident of Neptune. What I've spoken
> is the truth!

> Mark well, as I stand here today, this time of trouble shall last
> one year, one month, one day, one hour, and one minute. But thjat
> the appointed hour, the time of trouble shall and, and peace shall
> come to this land for 100 years.

> The mouse shall bell the cat. The lamb shall lead the lion. The
> poor and ignorant shall know wisdom and plenty.

What a world! Everyone thinks they can predict the future!

John

[Matt1989]

Who is going to be the last president?

[scotths]

1. please name 2 or 3 major pieces of legislation he has authored

Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation -- This bill is focused on securing weapons materials to avoid its use by terrorists.

Coburn-Obama Transparency Act -- Created USAspending.gov to make public in an easily searchable form information about government spending

He also introduced the "Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Act", to tempt to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections.

He cosponsored the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (which was killed by a Republican Filibuster threat).

2. please provide 2 or 3 examples of when he has bucked his own party (since he is "for change" he can't adhere to the "party line" every time

Obama was involved in ethics legislation at the state and federal level. Read here about "How Obama defied Reid and got Real Ethics Reform Passed" http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/7/101110/2068.

In summary the democratic senate leadership attempted to water down the bill in such a way as to allow billions of earmarked expenditures to go unreported. Obama sided with the Senate Republicans to ensure that this did not happen and that nearly all earmarks are tied to their sponsors. This seems an important piece of legislation for those interested in disciplined federal spending.

One could also note that after 12 years of a Republican controlled government, ending the current trajectory of the country would be a change!

[scotths]

Consensus building is historically more common in the New England region??? Where do you get that? I'd argue its the opposite. The original settlers were, by definition, anything but "Consensus builders," less than a decade had gone by before you had religious dissenters being banished to settle the other New England states. Then we have the Sons of Liberty, early threats to succeed from the young Republic, all the way down to today, where N.E. is represented by some of the more radical politicians in the nation. Not passing judgement here - hell, I'm all for the Sons of Liberty, and I'm thrilled the Pilgrims decided show up - just questioning the idea of NE somehow being a region of consensus.

It is true that the Puritans were initially intolerant and saw themselves building a utopian society based around their religious beliefs that particular desire is long since in the past. These beliefs did lead to many of the regions current strengths. For instance, the belief in the importance of education led to the best public school systems found anywhere in the country. I would argue that the region is now one of the most open minded, diverse areas of the country!

I think the radicalness of New England politicians is somewhat overstated. For instance, Ted Kennedy is known for his frequent co-sponsorship with republicans of reasonable moderate legislation.

Regarding consensus.. While the coastal south was ruled by a self-perpetuating top down oligarchy, New England left much of the governing to individual towns through town meeting style governance. At these meetings generally decisions were made by consensus. Also, for state level offices individuals were selected for short terms and they represented smaller numbers of people. This allowed for more involvement by the people.

[scotths]

scotths wrote:

Obama...
Obama understands the need to direct funds in the direction of infrastructure renewal.

Holy crap, I keep on seeing this prototype bullshit statement:
"Obama really understands [my personal issue that I think is important] and will make it a priority."

It's like half the electorate thinks they've got this guy on speed dial in their t-mobile fave five.

This would be a stronger argument if you were to explain either why we don't need to direct funds to infrastructure removal and/or why you believe the assessment that Obama will make this I priority is not true?

Perhaps he does understand a number of different issues, and the comments people made are accurate!

[scotths]

But the point a previous poster made about when the inevitable CoC War comes, a President Obama would be better positioned to rally the younger generation to fight is a compelling notion. Especially if events will be largely out of the next president's control anyway. If there is a depression followed by an epic war it's not as if either party would have much opportunity to follow an ideological agenda - and whatever agenda is followed will likely by driven by an outspoken people.

I don't think ideological issues will be particularly important... Many of these will probably be placed aside as we enter into a period in which practicality becomes more important. The current hot button issues are becoming less important. Abortion opponents are starting to accept that abortion will not be made illegal and focus on other means to reduce abortions. Gay marriage will likely spread to the remaining logical states (rest of New England, upper midwest etc). then likely stop for the next few decades. We'll probably have to wait until after the crisis before the countries laws are homogenized on this issue.

Right now our government is completely incompetent. We need to put people who at least believe that government can function in charge for a while and allow them to rebuild. Consider the past few years...

Total mismanagement of our financial system in which all basic regulations put in place during the great depression are removed. We need new, modern regulation to ensure that tax payer funds are not put at risk in the future.

Moving into the crisis we may face some of the worst catastrophes we've seen. Terrorist attacks, wars, global climate change effects, peak oil... We need a government that can competently respond to these challenges. Consider the FEMA response to Katrina. Day after day everyone in the country knew where people had been sheltered from the storm, yet day after day FEMA couldn't handle bringing them the most basic of supplies. This was an easy case! We knew when the hurricane was going to hit. We knew where it was going to hit. We knew what damage it would likely cause. How will this organization be able to deal with a terrorist attack when the circumstances are much less understood? Basic competence in government is a high priority at a time such as this.