Presidential Election

[scotths]

I'm a conservative, in that I believe that certain values - both cultural and economic - are essential to the long term survival of this nation (just stating my perspective, I don't visit this board to bicker about political philosophy). I don't believe that Obama shares those values, and I fear he, with a far left congress, would be inclined towards an agenda that would be crippling to this country.

Congress is not and will not be far left. Center-left would probably be the best way to describe it...

There is no intent to create a strongly socialist nation. Obama's planned tax increase for the wealthy individuals that has received so much attention is only a few percentage points and keeps taxes lower than they were in most of Reagan's term! He doesn't plan to nationalize industry, only to provide money to begin essential research and development programs. These will keep people employed in the short term, and provide a foundation for the economy going forward. Calling this "far left" is hyperbole....

Health care clearly needs attention. We are the only major industrial country which lacks a universal health care plan. In addition, we pay twice as much per person for what we do get. People are bankrupted if they are unlucky enough to get sick when they don't have health insurance, others die in hospitals because their plan denies them coverage, sometimes for something they were supposed to cover! The free market clearly has no incentive to fix this, it is easier for the market to allow the sick person to die than to bring them back into society. I can't see anyway this problem is fixed without government intervention. Obama's plan also focuses on regulation and cost reduction and doesn't create a huge government bureaucracy. In some ways this plan could be beneficial to those who believe in a free market as people would have much more freedom in terms of job selection knowing that they will be able to obtain health care at a reasonable rate regardless of where they work. Again, not far left...

Consider also that even Nixon supported programs to provide employment for displaced workers and universal health care!

[Matt1989]

If Obama is considered to be a *bad president* in four years, the Republican Party's prospects are still terrible. Obama and the Dems have locked in the youth vote overwhelmingly (in four years, there will be a lot more of voting age), and there is no impetus for this to change until the Republican Party can appeal to the Millennial generation. I do not see this happening any time soon. They would have to drop the pro-religious, anti-science, anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality, warmongering wing (like 80% of the party) and rhetoric in favor of a truly populist agenda. They'd have to be the new kids on the block -- not the dinosaurs that they are now. Can you imagine this happening?

So, if Obama can't stem the tide of America's downward turn, expect a third party (or two) to pick up the slack -- Libertarian and/or Green -- not the Republican Party. Either that, or a new government system.

[scotths]

If Obama is considered to be a *bad president* in four years, the Republican Party's prospects are still terrible. Obama and the Dems have locked in the youth vote overwhelmingly (in four years, there will be a lot more of voting age), and there is no impetus for this to change until the Republican Party can appeal to the Millennial generation. I do not see this happening any time soon. They would have to drop the pro-religious, anti-science, anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality, warmongering wing (like 80% of the party) and rhetoric in favor of a truly populist agenda. They'd have to be the new kids on the block -- not the dinosaurs that they are now. Can you imagine this happening?

I think the Republican party may become a southern populist party. Fiscal conservatism is (whatever your political views) going to be blamed for this crisis. The one region Obama can't seem to gain support in is with whites in the deep south and parts of the west. I suspect the Republican party will have to slide into that position for lack of another place to go. Huckabee or someone like him I think will be there nominee in four years... I don't think he'll win many votes outside of the regions mentioned above...

If the past is any indication the millennials in particular and the country in general will give Obama and the democrats a few chances to get it right. They won't be running for the exits at the first sign of trouble. As you point out, they won't have much in the way of places to run to! One of the parties drastically disagrees with just about all of their ideologies as a generation... (see The Progressive Politics of the Millennial Generation... http://www.newpolitics.net/node/360?full_report=1) I suspect they might make efforts to use the primaries to remove ineffective leaders, but I wouldn't expect drastic changes in party leadership going forward.

[Witchiepoo]

So, if Obama can't stem the tide of America's downward turn, expect a third party (or two) to pick up the slack -- Libertarian and/or Green -- not the Republican Party. Either that, or a new government system.

Agreed. I voted for Nader, but I kind of hope that Obama wins. It's the only way that people will finally wake up.

[Matt1989]

So, if Obama can't stem the tide of America's downward turn, expect a third party (or two) to pick up the slack -- Libertarian and/or Green -- not the Republican Party. Either that, or a new government system.

Agreed. I voted for Nader, but I kind of hope that Obama wins. It's the only way that people will finally wake up.

You're probably right. A McCain victory would lead to one of the biggest blowouts in history in 2012, if the country is still around.

[Witchiepoo]

You're probably right. A McCain victory would lead to one of the biggest blowouts in history in 2012, if the country is still around.

During the Nader/Baldwin debate last week, Nader commented on some areas where the "far right" meets the "far left." It would be cool to have a third political party, like maybe a union of the Greens and the Libertarians, that promotes personal liberties, reduced use of our military, separation of church/state, less corporate welfare. The only places where they would have to do a little negotiating is on social spending and environmental protection.

Thinking about it again, even if McCain wins, but the Democrats control congress and still sit around on their asses doing nothing different, that might be enough for people in BOTH parties to grow tired of the same old crap, and look for new leadership.

[scotths]

Thinking about it again, even if McCain wins, but the Democrats control congress and still sit around on their asses doing nothing different, that might be enough for people in BOTH parties to grow tired of the same old crap, and look for new leadership.

I am a tad bit confused by the comments aimed at congress over the past couple of years. With a hostile minority in the Senate and a President who will veto anything he doesn't like, what it is that the congress was supposed to do these past couple of years? I saw the 2006 election as a way for the Democrats to check the power of the Republican party, but I didn't think that during these 2 years they would be able to accomplish much. They did somewhat blunt the Republican push in someways. The FISA vote while still frustrating in the it grants immunity to those who may have broken the law at least now makes clear the requirement to obtain warrants. It is important that the judicial branch be involved, they are supposed to be an important check on the power of the executive. The honest government act was an important step in weakening lobbyist ties to congressmen as we move forward. Also while not nearly as far reaching as perhaps needed at least some effort was made to increase funding for alternative energy work. I would think that with a government as divided as it has been recently one would expect little to be accomplished. What would people have liked the congress to do?

[Witchiepoo]

With a hostile minority in the Senate and a President who will veto anything he doesn't like, what it is that the congress was supposed to do these past couple of years?

I don't know why you're limiting this question to the past couple of years. I would start further back, with the Iraq War authorization, passage of the Patriot Act ... and go all the way up to the recent bailout of Wall Street, that encourages the same irresponsible behavior that got us into this mess in the first place. All these things were strongly supported by a majority of Democrats.

What congress was/is supposed to do is put a leash and/or muzzle on that jackass president of ours. He can't pass legislation without their help, and vice versa. If those guys/gals are seriously intimidated by veto threats, they need to resign and let someone with more balls take over. Like maybe a tough Xer chick ... a "Sarah Palin" for progressive causes, not afraid to speak her mind regardless of the controversy involved.

Ah well, maybe in another four years, the "realigning" election will finally happen. Until then, business as usual ... Wall Street down another 200 points today ... ho hum ...

[scotths]

I don't know why you're limiting this question to the past couple of years. I would start further back, with the Iraq War authorization, passage of the Patriot Act ... and go all the way up to the recent bailout of Wall Street, that encourages the same irresponsible behavior that got us into this mess in the first place. All these things were strongly supported by a majority of Democrats.

Yes, the did vote for the Iraq war authorization when they probably should have taken a stand. It should also be noted that the American people were strongly behind this and it would have probably passed anyhow. Also, it should be noted that at least some voting for it probably hoped that the President would have considered diplomacy prior to deciding to invade. The Patriot act is another such problem... It is frustrating that they gave in to public support rather than taking an unpopular stand. However, the public is on the democrats side now. There won't be a reason in the future for them to compromise their stances on bills like that.

What congress was/is supposed to do is put a leash and/or muzzle on that jackass president of ours. He can't pass legislation without their help, and vice versa. If those guys/gals are seriously intimidated by veto threats, they need to resign and let someone with more balls take over. Like maybe a tough Xer chick ... a "Sarah Palin" for progressive causes, not afraid to speak her mind regardless of the controversy involved.

The had a reasonable bipartisan immigration bill shot down when the Republicans denied cloture. A small increase in funding for children's health care was vetoed.. It isn't that they are "intimidated" by veto threats it is that they are unable to do what they want because of the risk of a veto! Would you like to see them flooding the Presidents desk with legislation he won't sign? What would be the point? Shortly this will be a moot point anyhow...

We'll have a progressive minded President with a strong mandate and large congressional majorities in a few months. They won't have to fight the establishment as they will have control of the establishment!

[Witchiepoo]

It isn't that they are "intimidated" by veto threats it is that they are unable to do what they want because of the risk of a veto!

What's the difference?

Would you like to see them flooding the Presidents desk with legislation he won't sign?

How about a little negotiation. Like saying, hey f***face, if you want our cooperation with your legislation, you'd better get your ass in gear and support ours.

We'll have a progressive minded President with a strong mandate and large congressional majorities in a few months. They won't have to fight the establishment as they will have control of the establishment!

You and I have vastly different definitions of "progressive." Neither of the major candidates for prez fits that description, IMO.